Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/97

Neelam Seth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jagat Bhushan

06 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 97 dated 13.02.2019.                                                Date of decision: 06.01.2023.

 

Neelam Seth wife of Shri Anil Seth, r/o.R-64, Janta Enclave, Dhandra Road, Dugri, Ludhiana. (M) 9814052084.                                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., having its Registered Office at Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Director/Manager/Authorized person.          
2. M/s. Maruti Suzuki (India) Ltd. (NEXA), having its Corporate Office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Director/Manager/Authorized Person.                                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Jagat Bhushan Khanna, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that as it was the cherished desire of the complainant being his dream to own a Baleno car of Maruti Suzuki which is a renowned name in automobile industry. As such, the complainant bought a Baleno car for Rs.6,53,608/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.VSL16000104 dated 06.05.2016 for her personal use bearing registration No.PB-10FS-8703. From the date of purchase of the car, there was a technical fault in the same. The complainant has been facing steering problem and for resolving the same, the complainant complained of the matter with opposite party No.1 vide complaint ref. No.NX6860074749 and received email dated 28.11.2018 from the concerned official Mr. Nitin K. Kataria of the opposite party wherein he stated that the steering  issue replacement is considered as a complete part in warranty and the same shall be attended with utmost car at workshop and the part for the car has been ordered on priority and workshop manager shall update the complainant on receipt of the same. On 29.11.2018, the complainant through her husband Mr. Anil Seth sent an email to Mr. Nitin M. Kataria, official of the opposite parties and brought to his knowledge that two defects have taken place in the car within short span of 22000 Kms. And Nexa is only sharing the responsibility by replacing the defective part and that it shows the lapses in quality control and that is why the defect in assembling the part of vehicle was not noticed in the period of two years when the vehicle remained under service. In the said email dated 29.11.2018, the complainant through her husband also pointed out that she has purchased the vehicle with hard earned money and she would not like to have repaired or substandard vehicle but the said email was not responded by the opposite parties. On 01.12.2018, the complainant through her husband again sent email to Mr. Nitin M. Kataria and in this email, it was brought to the notice of the official of the opposite parties that no concrete reply/information has been received from their side and it was specifically mention that there is problem of dimensions of steering column prescribed by Nexa and fitted at the time of car assembly at factory and further distortion was felt by service dealer against the complaint of the complainant and further requested the opposite parties to provide standby car or if the opposite parties fail to do so then the complainant shall be hiring cab at the expenses of the opposite parties. The complainant further submitted that on 02.12.2018, husband of the complainant received email from Mr. Nitin M. Kataria, official of the opposite party mentioning that the issue has been identified to the root cause and the solution has also been offered by replacing complete steering column and not other repairs and that the workshop shall also conduct complete check up of the car as a proactive measure for satisfaction of the complainant regarding the problems in the car and for that purpose, Mr. Gurdeep at Swani Motors will be in touch with her.  On 03.12.2018, the complainant through her husband sent email to Mr. Nitin as none from the officials of opposite parties ever approached her for checkup of the car. On 06.12.2018, husband of the complainant received another email from the officials of opposite parties Mr. Sachin Ahuja, Regional Service Manager (Nexa) wherein instead of repairing or replacing the part of the car, he stated that Mr. Gurdeep or Mr. Nitin Kataria would be in touch with the complainant regarding the issue of car but till date no response was received by her from any of the officials of the opposite parties. On account of the above said defects/problems in the car, it goes a long way to show that there is a manufacturing defect. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the car whereas opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2 and the complainant being purchaser of car of the opposite parties is consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant does not want to keep the said car with the defects/problems so the complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the car with new one or to refund the amount of price of the car along with interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice till date but to no effect. Till date the defects/problems are there in the car due to which the complainant had to face mental pain, agony, torture and physical harassment at the hands of the opposite parties for which she is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the opposite parties are also bound to replace the car or to refund the amount of price of the car with interest @18% per annum. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 13.12.2018 posted on 15.12.2018 through her counsel Sh. Jagat Bhushan Khanna, Advocate but the opposite parties have failed to do needful despite notice and repeated requests of the complainant. Hence this complaint whereby it has been requested to direct the opposite parties to replace the Maruti Suzuki make Baleno car with a new car or to return the rice of the car i.e. Rs.6,35,508/-  along with interest @18% per annum and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony, torture and physical harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.1 through registered post on 05.03.2019 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.05.2019.

3.                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections/submissions that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties as the complainant has not impleaded Swani Motors Service Pvt. Ltd. where the vehicle has been sent for service and for repairs of the alleged problem of steering. The complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Act. The complainant bought the vehicle in question on 06.05.2016 and the alleged problem reported around 22.11.2018 i.e. after conclusion of warranty on 05.05.2018 by efflux of time. The alleged problem has never been reported after this date to any authorized workshop of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 further took preliminary objection that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive to make undue gains from opposite party No.2. The vehicle has always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of Swani Motors Service Pvt. Ltd. on 22.11.2018 at 22070 Kms. And the alleged problem of steering hard was reported as demanded repairs. The warranty for the vehicle in question had already concluded on 05.05.2018 by efflux of time. The vehicle was inspected and observed that steering column assembly needed to be replaced. As the part was not available the order for the said part was placed. The complainant was intimated via email dated 28.11.2018, 02.12.2018 and 06.12.2018 that steering column assembly will be replaced. The said part was to be replaced on payment basis as the warranty had concluded but for the satisfaction of the complainant, the said part was to be replaced on free of cost basis and the same was duly informed to the complainant. Even after these mail communications, the complainant did not bring the vehicle to any authorized workshop of opposite party No.2 for the necessary repairs/replacements till date. This is indicative of the fact that the alleged problem could not be resolved due to any defect but because the complainant did not sent the vehicle for necessary repairs. Opposite party No.2 further submitted that the vehicle has been plied for another 3544 Kms after this visit and sent for two times t the workshop of Swani Motors Service Pvt. Ltd. but no problem as related to steering hard has been reported. This clearly indicates that the vehicle is being purposefully plied by the complainant and the complainant is trying to put undue pressure on the opposite party by filing this complaint. Moreover, the complainant has failed to establish case for defect as per Section 2 (1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the obligation of opposite party No.2 under the warranty is which is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out in the Warranty Policy (Clause 3)  as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. Opposite party No.2 is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40000 Kms from the date of sale. The vehicle in question has always been attended as per terms and conditions  and the warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in Owner’s manual and service booklet and the warranty for the sale in question concluded on 05.05.2018 and there is no obligation left to be performed on the part of opposite party No.2. Moreover, the complainant has failed to set out  any case for compensation within the provision of Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act and has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate her claim for compensation against opposite party No.2.

                   On merits, opposite party No.2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the warranty for the vehicle had concluded and no obligation was left to be performed on the part of opposite party No.2. Any repairs/replacements after this period were to be carried out on paid basis. As per clause 3 of the Warranty it is cearly stated that ‘if any defect (s) should be found in a Maruti vehicle within the term stipulated under warranty, Maruti’s only obligation is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective,  with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour, when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacement which are not covered by this warranty.’  As such, the obligation of opposite party was only to replace the part i.e. steering column assembly and this fact was informed to complainant vide email dated 28.11.2018. It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 is an independent entity having its own MOA and carry out business on their own invoice & sale certificate. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 does not sell its products to any individual under its invoice or sale certificate. Opposite party No.2 sells its products to its authorized dealers and the relationship between opposite party No.2 and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties. As per clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. The complainant entered into an independent transaction with opposite party No.1 for the purchase of the vehicle in question to which opposite party No.2 was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same and the complainant is not consumer of opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the complainant has sought the relief which is beyond the ambit of warranty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission have settled the responsibilities of manufacturer during the Warranty period and the replacement of car or refund of price of the vehicle is beyond the specific terms and conditions of the warranty as set out under Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. The opposite party No.2 has denied that there is deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Adhar card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of invoice dated 06.05.2016, Ex. C3 and Ex. C4 are the postal receipts, Ex. C5 is the legal notice dated 13.12.2018, Ex. C6 is the  copy of email dated 06.12.2018, Ex. C7 and Ex. C8 are the copies of receipts dated 06.05.2016, Ex. C9 is the copy of email dated 03.12.2018 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit Ex. R2 of Sh. Ishwar Singh, working for opposite party No.2 along with documents Ex. R2-1 and Ex. R2-2 copy of Dealership Agreement, Ex. R2-3 is copy of job card dated 13.04.2018,  Ex. R2-4 is copy of job card/retail tax invoice dated 22.11.2018, Ex. R2-5 is copy of email dated 06.12.2018 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

7.                Un-disputably, the complainant purchased the Maruti Suzuki make Baleno from opposite party No.1 manufactured by opposite party No.2 having reasonable expectations that the vehicle will run smoothly. According to the complainant, she has been facing steering problem and she had approached the opposite parties for resolving the same. On 28.11.2018, she received an email from one Mr. Nitin M. Kataria explaining that the steering issue has been considered as a complete part in warranty and it shall be attended on priority basis at their workshop. But instead of taking the vehicle to the workshop, on the very next day i.e. on 29.11.2018, the complainant again lodged a protest with the opposite parties stating therein that whey these defects were not detected earlier when the vehicle remained under ser ice and had already covered a distance of 22000 Kms. Thereafter, on 01.12.2018, another email was sent and in response to which Mr. Nitin M. Kataria again responded and offered replacement of complete steering column and further assured complete thorough check-up by Mr. Gurdeep Singh of Swani Motors. Again the complainant did not went to M/s. Swani Motors aong with car for its repair. On 03.12.2018, the complainant sent another email complaining that none of the official had ever approached the complainant. On 06.12.2018, the official of the opposite parties again responded in a passive manner. It was submitted on the part of the opposite parties that the warranty of the vehicle in question concluded on 05.05.2018 by efflux of time and there was no obligation left to be performed on the part of the opposite parties but still as a matter of goodwill gesture they had offered the replacement of steering column on free of cost basis. Mr. Ishwar Singh, a qualified engineer on behalf of opposite party No.2 submitted his affidavit as Ex. R2 where it is mentioned that the alleged problem could not be resolved because the complainant did not send the vehicle for necessary repairs and the vehicle had plied for another 26668 Kms after 22.11.2018. It was also brought into the notice of the Commission that during pendency of this complaint, as on 17.03.2022, the vehicle in question has plied more than 48738 Kms. which itself shows that the vehicle is free from any defect. Perusal of response of the complainant as contained in Ex. C6 shows that the complainant  insisted for the replacement of the vehicle only and she proclaimed that she was not like to have repaired or substandard vehicle. From the perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made out with regard to replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the car received by the opposite parties. Hence this prayer is declined.

8.                Now the point of consideration arises before this Commission is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

9.                It is the complainant who did not brought into the notice of the representative of the opposite parties during the first two years when the vehicle went to the service station for periodic maintenance. Even after lapse of the stipulated warranty period, the representative of the opposite parties were gracious enough to offer the replacement of assembly of steering column free of costs but the complainant insisted upon the replacement of the vehicle without bringing her case into four corners of manufacturing defect. So it cannot be said that the opposite parties have rendered deficient services hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Neelam Seth Vs M/s. Sandhu Automobiles                               CC/19/97

Present:       Sh. Jagat Bhushan Khanna, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.