SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for getting an order directing opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- charged by the opposite parties from the complainant on 30/05/2018 together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.
Facts in brief of complainant are that the complainant is the owner in possession of Maruti Suzuki Swift car 2010 model having registration No.KL-60 B 3999 and the complainant is driving this car since inception. In the month of May 2017 the aforesaid vehicle developed some oil leakage and it is also noticed some peculiar sound at the time of starting the vehicle. On 19/05/2017, this complainant immediately took the vehicle to Maruti Authorized service centre- M/s Pioneer Auto & Engineering works, Kannur for rectifying the defect. M/s Pioneer Auto & Engineering works checked the vehicle and informed the complainant that engine needs to be dismantled and engine overhauling is required to be carried out and the total amount required for doing this work would be around Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, this complainant entrusted the vehicle to M/s Pioneer Auto & Engineering works, Kannur, the OP No.1, authorized dealer of M/s Mauthi Suzuki motors. The bills dated 06/06/2017 totaling to an amount of Rs.47,494.57/-. As this complainant was not having sufficient funds to clear the bill amount of Rs.47,494.57/- the complainant informed the OP No.1 that he has to arrange the balance amount and the vehicle will be lifted within a few days time and OP No.1 agreed for the same. After a few days, when the complainant went to OP No.1 office for taking delivery of the vehicle the OP demanded parking charges of Rs.100/- per day and the complainant had to cough up an extra amount of Rs.1,000/- towards parking charges. 18/09/2017, the vehicle again developed some starting complaint and stopped abruptly which was brought to the notice of the OP No.1. On 27/09/2017, this complainant took delivery of the vehicle. After covering just 2 Kms., unusual noise developed from the engine and immediately took the vehicle to the workshop of OP No.1 again on 29/09/2017, this complainant called up the OP No.1 and enquired about the repair work. The OP No.1 demanded a further sum of Rs.40,000/- over and above what has already been paid to the OP No.1. After taking delivery, the vehicle frequently developed technical snag and on all the occasions this complainant had to take the vehicle to OPNo.1 and in spite of this the OP No.1 could not identify the complaint and rectify the defect. Fed up with the poor quality of service on the part of OP No.1, this complainant got in touch with the Mr. Abhishek, The Kerala Region Service Manager, and requested him to look into the matter. Based on Mr. Abhishek’s advice, this complainant took the vehicle to M/s Popular Motors service center at Thazhe chovva. After a few days, M/s Popular Motors, Thazhe chovva informed this complainant that the complaint is rectified and vehicle is ready for delivery and accordingly this complainant took delivery of the vehicle. For carrying out the repair work, M/s Popular Motors service center, Thazhechovva raised a bill of Rs.20,113/- from this complainant and that amount was paid by OP No.1. The complainant says that the action on the part of the OP No.1 reflects the poor quality of work and this is clear case of deficiency of service. The acts on the part of the OPs are totally illegal, unethical and contrary to the business ethics and policies. The OPs have therefore committed a grave deficiency of service as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Hence this complaint.
Due notices were issued to OPs. After receiving notices, OPs 1 and 2 filed separate versions denying all the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.
1st OP contended that it is submitted that the vehicle in dispute is a Maruthi Swift Diesel car owned by the complainant was not driven by the complainant himself. The vehicle is being used as rent a car service. On 15/05/2017 the vehicle was brought to this OP for repair. The complaint was oil leakage, Clutch complaint and loose fitting of axile and engine bolt at that time vehicle had an odometer reading of 80285 KMS. On examination it revealed that the entire vehicle was soaked with salty water with seaside sand. On enquiry it was informed by the complainant that the vehicle was given to a third party under a rent a car agreement and he and his friends driven the vehicle at Muzhappilangad drive in beach and since the vehicle is driven in drive in beach the vehicle engine was soaked with sea water with sand. Further the axile and engine bolt were loosely fitted on enquiry with complainant it is informed that he approached another local workshop and while repairing the vehicle, they expressed their inability to repair since the vehicle had serious problems due to entry of salty water and sand in some of the parts. So the vehicle was brought to this OP No.1 for repair. The engine was refitted after removing the same and the oil leakage was corrected apart from that clutch was overhauled several valves and parts were replaced. The engine work was done but the engine overhauling was not done as stated in the complaint. This OP No.1 never informed the complainant that the estimate of the work will be around Rs.20,000/- after repairing the vehicle this OP informed the complainant that the vehicle is ready for delivery after repair. But the complainant informed that some of the parties had enquired with him for getting the vehicle on rent, he is negotiating with them regarding the rent and he further informed that he will take delivery of vehicle only after fixing the rent with those parties, accordingly the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying the amount. No parking charges were collected from the complainant as stated in the complaint. While taking delivery of the vehicle, the technician of this OP very specifically informed the complainant that the vehicle shall not be used in drive in beach as the salty water will cause serious damages to the engine. The complainant was not prepared to pay the entire repair charges and requested for installments for paying the repair charges, saying that he didn’t get the entire rent from his party. Considering the situation this OP delivered the vehicle to the complainant without paying the entire repair charges. While taking delivery of the vehicle the complainant assured that he will pay the balance within two weeks but he had not paid the amount. He did not paid the dues even after repeated demands. Subsequently the vehicle was again brought to the workshop of this OP in the month of March 2018 for repair. Thought he vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant he had paid only Rs.35,000/- and left the place without clearing he dues and assured that the balance will be paid shortly. Later the vehicle was again brought to this OP for repair at that time the officials informed that the vehicle cannot be repaired without clearing the dues, later on negotiation he agreed to pay the dues after starting het repair and agreed to pay the amount of repair works after completing the repair. But even though the repair works started he failed to clear the dues. Later a negotiation was conducted with the officials of the manufacturer. According to the negotiation the vehicle was taken to Popular Motors for repair and this OP agreed to pay the repair charges and this OP had paid the repair charges to popular motors. But the complainant without paying the dues and without informing this OP taken the delivery of the vehicle from popular motors. The only intention of the complainant is to avoid the payment of dues to this OP. As per statement of accounts maintained by this OP, this complainant has to pay Rs.1,00,886.75/- towards the repair charge to this OP as on 31/03/2018. The complainant had paid only Rs.82,294.57/- and still there is a balance of Rs.18,592/-. There is not deficiency in service on the part of this OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
2nd OP manufacturer of the vehicle has stated in their version that the complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods (car) nor hired any service for consideration with the answering OP. Further submitted that Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(answering OP), being the manufacturer, gives warranty for all its new vehicles. The said warranty is the only obligation of answering OP and is valid only for a limited period/term, as specifically set out under clause 2 of the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. Clause 2 of warranty policy states that “the term of the warranty shall be 24 months or 40,000/- kilometers (whichever occurs first) from the date of invoice to the 1st owner.”. It is also mentioned in the warranty policy that “the owner is responsible for any repair or replacement which are not covered by this warranty”. The vehicle in question was admittedly purchased by the complainant in the year 2010, hence the vehicle had already become out of warranty several years back. It is further submitted that OP No.1 is a separate and independent legal entity and answering OP cannot be held liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of OP No.1. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold as against the OP No.2. Similarly, the complainant herein has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his case as against answering OP and on this ground alone the complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine. There was any deficiency in service or irresponsible act on the part of OP 2. The complainant has not suffered physical, mental tension and monetary loss due to any act of omission or commission on the part of answering OP. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for under the Act against answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
After that complainant and1st OP adduced their evidence. Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Pw1 and the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A17. On behalf of 1st OP, the mechanic of the service station has filed his chief-affidavit and has been examined as Dw1. Both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination for the other parties. After adducing evidence, learned counsel of complainant file written argument note.
The undisputed facts are the complainant purchased a 2010 model vehicle Maruti Suzuki Swift and in the year 2010 having Registration No.KL-60 B39999. Further in the month of May 2017, the said vehicle developed some oil leakage and starting trouble and entrusted the vehicle to OP No.1 on 19/05/2017. Further before 2017, the vehicle had not shown any repair work. Complainant admitted that after 19/05/2017, the vehicle was entrusted for work on September 2017 and the service charge become 35,000/-. Ext.A15 dated 30/03/2018 shows that complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to OP No.1. Further complainant admitted that after the above said work, he had entrusted many times interval date to OP No.1 for service and as per the direction of Maruti Regional Manager, the vehicle was given to popular Auto mobiles for service and the service charge Rs.20,710/- had been paid by OP No.1. Complainant alleged that from directing the vehicle to popular service center by OP No.1 itself shows that the work done by OP No.1 was poor quality service and hence he is demanding to repay Rs.35,000/- paid by him on 30/03/2018 with compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. On the other hand OP No.1 contended that on 18/09/2017 the vehicle was received to them for the repair work, and on examination it revealed that entire engine was soaked with mud and salty water, again on enquiry it was informed that the vehicle was plyed at drive in beach by the party on rent. OP No.1 admitted Ext.A2 bill dated 06/06/2017. On 18/09/2017 the engine was overhauled and other incidental repair work were also done. According to OP since the vehicle is driven in a rash manner driven beach and hence serious damage was caused to engine parts. OP No.1 contended that they have done the entire work and but the complainant was not paid the entire repairs charge, he had paid an amount of Rs.35,000/- only on March 2018 (Ext.A15) OP No.1 further submitted that without paying the balance amount he had taken the vehicle with an assurance of paying it within two weeks. After that the vehicle was again brought for repair. But OP1 informed that without paying the dues they cannot repair the vehicle. Further stated that after negotiation complainant agreed to pay the dues and the vehicle was taken to popular motors for repair and OP No.1 paid the repair charges Rs.20,113/- to popular. According to OP No.1, complainant is still to pay Rs.18,592/- to this OP towards repair charges. According to OP 1 complainant has filed this complaint only to avoid from the said payment.
During cross-examination Pw1 deposed that OP No.1 ല് ഏല്പ്പിച്ച വാഹനം ഞാന് Maruthi Regional Manager Abhishek നെ ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടതിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തില് Popular Auto mobiles ല് Service ചെയ്തു. ആ Service കഴിഞ്ഞ് ഞാന് Popular ല് നിന്ന് വാഹനം തിരിച്ചെടുത്തു. ആയതിന് Repair ചെലവ് ഏകദേശം രൂപ Rs.20,710/- രൂപ 1-ാം എതൃകക്ഷി Popular motors ല് അടച്ച ശേഷമാണ് ഞാന് Delivery എടുത്തത്. Rs.20,710/- രൂപ 1-ാം എതൃകക്ഷി Workshop ല് കൊടുത്തിട്ടില്ല. നിയമ പ്രകാരം ആ Amount OP No.1 ന് കൊടുക്കേണ്ട ബാദ്ധ്യത ഉണ്ടെന്നുപറഞ്ഞാല്? വണ്ടിക്ക് ഇടയ്ക്കിടെ തകരാറ് വരുന്നതുകൊണ്ട് കൊടുത്തില്ല.
Further Ext.A17 shows that on 30/03/2018 there is a balance amount to be paid by complainant to OP as Rs.18,592/-. Further A17 shows that the vehicle was brought to OP No.1 for further time.
Here complainant claimed to repair the amount of Rs.35,000/- which he had paid to OP No.1. But Ext.A2 and Ext.A11 bill shows the details of work done by OP No.1 on 06/06/2017 and the grant total comes to Rs.37,117/-. It is also shows that there was no repetition work done by OP No.1 to the vehicle. Further still 2017 from 2010, the vehicle does not have any repair work. That means there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle. OPs contention is that the repeated work happened to the vehicle because of giving the vehicle to rent take and also using in drive in breach. Though there is no evidence for the said contention, from the facts and circumstances of this case and as OP No.1 received the only the repair charge from the complainant, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Since there is no manufacturing defect of the vehicle, there is no liability on the part of OP No.2 also.
In the result, as complainant failed to prove his case, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1-Cash receipt 12/07/2017
A2-Bill issued by OP dated 06/06/2017
A3-Bill issued by KVN Shenay dated 31/05/2017
A4- Bill issued by KVN Shenay
A5-Bill issued by modern Engineering dated 19/05/2017
A6- Bill issued by modern Engineering dated 17/05/2017
A7-Bill issued by Saravana Diesel dated 30/05/2017
A8- Bill issued by Saravana Diesel dated 30/05/2017
A9-Bill issued by Pioneer Auto & Engineering
A10- Bill issued by Pioneer Auto & Engineering
A11- Bill issued by Pioneer Engineering dated 16/06/2017
A12- Bill issued by Pioneer Auto & Engineering
A13- Bill issued by Pioneer Auto & Engineering
A14-Job card details(Retail tax-invoice)
A15-Cash receipt dated 30/03/2018 issued by Pioneer Auto & Engineering works.
PW1-Complainant.
Dw1-Ananda Krishnan- Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
