Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/214/2016

Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shakti Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Devi Lal

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

 

                                                           Complaint No.:214 of 2016.

                                                           Date of Instt.: 17.08.2016.

                                                           Date of Decision: 12.02.2018.

 

Mahender Singh son of Mangtu Ram, V.P.O. Bhuthan Khurd, Fathabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

                                                                             …Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.M/s Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Sirsa Road, Fatehabad, Tehsil & District Fatehabad. Through its Director/Manager.

 

2.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandiragh-160008. Through its M.D.   

 

                                                                             …Opposite Parties.

 

             Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Before:                Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                            Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

         

Present:                Sh.Devi Lal, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.M.S.Godara, Counsel for the Op no.1.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Counsel for OP no.2.

 

ORDER:

                            

                             The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he purchased a brand new car model Alto 800 LXI from OP no.1 on 19.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,79,300/-. It is further submitted that the said car was having manufacturing warranty of one year and the complainant had been getting the service of the car done regularly from Service Centre of Op No.1.

2.                          It is further submitted that in the month of March 2016, the complainant noticed that the inner side paint of the window of the car had faded and as such on 19.05.2016 the complainant visited the office of Op no.1 with regard to the above said defect. The Service Engineer of Op no.1 inspected the car and took some photographs of the defected area of the car where the paint had faded. After inspection of the defect the Service Engineer stated that the defect scanned by him will be sent to higher authority and the problem will be solved as soon as possible.

3.                          It is further submitted that on 07.03.2016 the complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and he was informed by officials of Op No.1 that the paint of the window had faded because the complainant used local foot-mats in his car and as such the car has not been repaired by the Op no.1. On account of the above said act, the complainant is fed-up with service of Ops and they are adamant not to rectify the fault or to replace the above said car. The above said act on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice in rendering service to him. In the prayer clause, it is submitted by the complainant that the OPs may be directed to refund the full amount of the car with 18% interest per annum along-with compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of harassment suffered by him and Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges. Hence, the present complaint.

4.                          On being served, OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, jurisdiction and concealment of material facts; have been raised. It is also submitted that the present complaint is false, frivolous, misconceived, abuse of process of law and has been filed to harass and blackmail the OPs.

5.                          In reply on merits, it is admitted that the car in question was purchased from Op no.1. It is further submitted that the company provides a warranty for a period of 2 years or for 40,000 k.m. whichever is earlier from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The said warranty is subject to the terms and conditions as specified in service booklet.

6.                          It is further averred that the complainant is quite negligent in maintenance of the vehicle and the complainant did not bring the vehicle to the work-shop for obtaining free maintenance service. It is further averred that on 05.03.2016, the complainant visited the work-shop of Op no.1 with regard to his complaint. Upon inspection it was observed that the vehicle in question had colour difference on the inside body parts. After inspection, it was also noticed that the complainant had fitted the Local/ Non Maruti Genuine Accessories / unapproved foot mats from local shop and as such he has violated the warranty policy. On inspection, it was also noticed that in violation of warranty the complainant had fitted LPG Gas Kit. It is further averred that the colour of the vehicle in question might have changed due to chemical reaction between the local foot mats and the body parts of the vehicle. It is further prayed that there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                          Op No.2 also filed written statement wherein the averments made in the complaint have been resisted on the similar grounds as taken by the OP No.1 in its written statement. Op No.2 also submitted that the sale of vehicle in question is a matter of record. It is further submitted that the complainant entered into an independent transaction with Op no.1 for sale of the vehicle to which the Op no.2 is neither party nor received any consideration for the same. It is also further averred that the vehicle in question was FCOK and PDI certified free from any defect at the time of sale.

8.                          It is also further submitted that non approved MGA parts i.e. local foot mats got entrapped with painted parts leading to discoloration  of the parts inside cabin. It is also averred that the OP no.2 has been using ultra technical equipment and robot in its paint shop during his paint process of a vehicle. The vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in paint process, which is worldwide accepted ultra method for paint of a body shell. The car in question was manufactured in the State of Art Plant of Op No.2 where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of  robots. The vehicles are painted in batches and no such complaint of colour discoloration has been received by the OP from any other consumer. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of OPs in selling the car in question to the complainant and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

9.                          During the proceedings the complainant filed an application dated 19.01.2017 for examination of the vehicle in question from an expert with regard to the issue of fading of the colour. The said application was allowed and Works Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad was directed to inspect the vehicle in question after giving notice to both the parties. In compliance of the above said order the Works Manager submitted his report Ex.CW1/9. However, the Op no.2 filed objection that the car in question was not examined by the works manager after giving notice to both the parties as directed by this Forum. Keeping in view the objection taken by Op no.2 the Works Manager was again directed to inspect the car in question after giving notice to both the parties. In compliance of the above said order the Works Manager after giving notice to both the parties inspected the car in question and submitted his report as Ex.CW1/8.

10.                        In evidence the complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure CW1 wherein the averments made in his complaint has been re-affirmed. The complainant also tendered in evidence the documents Annexure C1 i.e. Invoice, Annexure C2 i.e. Certificate –cum- Policy Schedule, Annexure C3 i.e. Certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question. The complainant also tendered in evidence  the photographs of the car Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 and also the receipt of the bill Ex. CW1/A and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh.Shubham Dikshit filed affidavit as Annexure RW1/A on behalf of Op No.2. Op No.2 also tendered in evidence documents Annexure R2/1, Annexure R2/2, Annexure R2/3 and closed the evidence. The counsel for the Op No.1 placed on record the documents as Annexures R4 to R8 and made a statement that reply already filed by OP No.1 may kindly be read as evidence of OP no.1

11.                        We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have also examined the entire material placed on record. It is not disputed that the car in question was purchased by the complainant form Op no.1 and OP no.2 is manufacturer of the same. It is also not disputed that the said car was having a warranty of 2 years. It is also not in dispute that within the warranty period complainant made complaint to the OPs with regard to fading of the colour of vehicle in question. In their reply and affidavit it has also been admitted by the OPs that the vehicle in question had colour difference on the inside body parts.

12.                        The claim of the complainant has been contested by the OPs mainly on ground that the complainant had fitted local foot mats from a local work shop which are not Maruti Genuine Accessories. It is the case of the OPs that the colour of the car in question might have changed due to chemical reaction between the local foot mats and body part. The non approved MGA parts i.e. local foot mats got entrapped with painted parts leading to discoloration of the parts inside the cabin.

13.                        To resolve the controversy involved in the present case as to whether the colour of the car in question faded on account of using of local foot mats or it was a case of manufacturing defect, the matter was referred to Expert/ Automobile Engineer i.e. Works Manager of Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad for inspection of the car. The Works Manager of Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad filed his report Ex.CW1/8 and opined that on 12.09.2017 the paint of the car in question was checked by him and it was found that the colour of all the four windows from inside and that of dickey has been faded. The Works Manager further opined that the paint / colour of car cannot be faded due to rubber and foot mats.

14.                        From the report of expert Ex.CW1/8 it is established that the paint/colour of the car in question did not fade on account of the foot mats used by the complainant as alleged by the OPs. In view of the report CW1/8 we are of the considered opinion that fading of the colour in the present case is on account of manufacturing defect. Therefore the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OPs in selling the car in question to him.

15.                        In the present case the complainant has sought relief of refund of the original cost of the car in question. In this regard it is submitted that the car in question was purchased by the complainant in May, 2015 and the same has been used by him for a period of about 2 years and 9 months. Therefore we are of the opinion that refund of the original cost or replacement of the car in question is not justified. Otherwise also it is settled principle of law that if the manufacturing defect is pointed out then the manufacturer should be directed to repair the manufacturing defect and not replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price. Reliance is placed on M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Moosa, 1986- 1994, NC Supreme Court on Consumer cases 1367 (NS) and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mahendera and Mahendra Limited. Vs. B.G. Thakur Desai and cited as 1(1993) CPJ 72.

 

16.                        But at the same time we are of the opinion that fading of the colour of the car in question is not a minor defect and it is proved on record that it is due to manufacturing defect. Therefore the OP No.2 being manufacturer is duty bound to re-paint the whole car.

 

17.                        Since, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency quo Op No.1 in rendering service to him, as such the complaint against Op No.1 deserves dismissal. We order accordingly.

 

18.                        In view of aforesaid discussion the present complaint is partly allowed against Op N o.2.  The complainant shall take the car to the work-shop of OPs within a period of one month after receipt of copy of this order and the Op No.2 shall be bound to re-paint the whole car like a new one within a period of 2 weeks free of costs. The Op No.2 is also further

 

 

 

 

directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension, physical harassment and inconvenience. The present complaint is accordingly disposed of. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   Dated:12.02.2018                                           

                                                                      (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                        President                               

  (Ansuya Bisnoi)          (R.S.Panghal)           Distt. Consumer Dispute

Member            Member                               Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.