DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 217 of 27-03-2014

Decided on : 17-11-2015

Col. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, aged about 52 years, S/o Sh. Tej Bhan Jindal, P-81/3, Himgiri Enclave, Bathinda Cntt. District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Tara Automobiles, Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Opposite ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/ Chairman/M.D.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon through its Chairman/M.D./Director

3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1,Nalson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its Chairman/M.D./Director

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the Complainant : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for complainant.

For the opposite parties : Sh. A.S. Sekhon, counsel for OP No.1

Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for OP No. 2

OP No. 3 exparte.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Col. Rajesh Kumar, complainant, has filed this complaint against M/s. Tara Automobiles and others (opposite parties) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act').

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one new Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. PB-03AD(T)-2593 from opposite party No. 1 on 16-09-2013 for a sum of Rs. 5,68,000/-. The car was subsequently registered as PB-03AE-5833. The car has been manufactured by opposite parties No. 2 & 3. At the time of sale, it was assured by the opposite parties that the said car is a high quality product. It is free from all sorts of manufacturing defects and is within warranty. The complainant has got inspection/service of vehicle from time to time from opposite party No. 1 as per schedule. It is alleged that soon after purchase, the complainant started having problem of vibration and abnormal noise from the all the four windows, causing lot of discomfort and harassment to the occupants of the car, making the journey a trouble and risk. He approached opposite party No. 1 who tried to remove the defects, being within warranty, but could not succeed inspite of number of attempts. Therefore, there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle which cannot be rectified at all. Moreover, instead of removal of defect of vibration/abnormal noise from the windows of the car while running, another problem of water entering into the car from the front glass of the car started. The complainant and his brother Dr. Dheeraj Goyal brought this problem to the notice of all the opposite parties. It was assured that defects will be removed but to no effect.

3. It is pleaded that Mr. Gauarav Negi, TSM of the company also inspected the vehicle and tried to get the defects removed but failed to do so. The complainant has spent huge amount on the car for his comfort and for the comfort of his family but the same became a problem for the complainant and his family due to manufacturing defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the car with a new one or to refund the entire amount i.e. Rs. 5,68,000/- but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant and finally flatly refused for the same. The complainant got served legal notice dated 28-02-2014 through his counsel with the request either to replace the car with new one or to refund the entire amount, but the opposite parties did not bother to the said legal notice. The opposite parties sent e-mail dated 3-3-2014 where they have admitted the defect in the vehicle of the complainant.

4. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He has claimed Rs. 1.00 Lac as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration etc., ; Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation in addition to directions to the opposite parties either to replace the car with new one,with fresh warranty/guarantee or refund its price.

5. Upon notice, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written versions but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3. As such, exparte proceeding were taken against opposite party No. 3.

6. The opposite party No. 1 in its written version raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. That complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. That complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed material facts. That the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. That this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint.

7. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has admitted that on 9-10-2013, the complainant visited service station of opposite party No. 1 for first free service . The opposite party No. 1 serviced the car of the complainant and during servicing, the mechanic of opposite party No. 1 found that non Maruti genuine accessories (Stereo) and speakers were fitted in the car of the complainant. Accordingly, the opposite party No. 1 recommended the complainant to get fitted company branded stereo in his car but at that time, the complainant only got his car serviced and did not complaint regarding any noise etc., Thereafter in the month of November, 2013, the complainant visited opposite party No. 1 vide job card dated 20-11-2013 (second visit) with the problem of abnormal noise from dashboard. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 checked the car and found non Maruti genuine accessories fitted in the car i.e. stereo and speakers from outside. The opposite party No. 1 performed its best efforts to remove the noise in the car. Then the complainant visited opposite party No. 1 vide job card dated 25-11-2013 and complained regarding noise from front door. The opposite party No. 1 checked dashboard but the complainant did not agree to remove the non Maruti genuine accessories fitted from the outside. However, the alleged noise, if any, is due to non Maruti genuine accessories (i.e. speakers in door) in the car in question. In the month of December, 2013, the complaint again visited opposite party No. 1 for second service vide job card dated 10-12-2013. At that time, he did not complaint regarding alleged noise and got serviced the car as second free service. The complainant again visited opposite party No. 1 vide job card dated 17-12-2013 and complained about dashboard abnormal noise. The opposite party No. 1 checked the vehicle. It was rectified. Moreover, the alleged problem regarding water entering into the car was never reported in any job card. It was just an allegation and concocted story. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the car. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. The opposite party No. 2 in its written version raised legal objections that complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the 'Act'. That complaint is without cause of action against opposite party No. 2. The complainant has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2(1) (o) and (r) of the 'Act'. That the liability of opposite party No. 2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited under clause (3) of the Warranty policy and extends only to provide warranty services subject to the terms and conditions of warranty policy and also in case of extended warranty, which the opposite party No. 2 provided to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It is also mentioned that any vehicle launched in the market has to undergo several process of statutory approvals and compliances apart from internal research and development. All vehicles manufactured are duly approved by ARAI after considering all aspects of quality, safety and other norms. The vehicle in question had also undergone all the checks and only then FCOK (Final Check OK) was given by opposite party No. 2 before dispatching it to its dealer. The vehicle delivered to the complainant was defect free. That the complainant has suppressed true facts. He has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings. The complaint deserves dismissal.

9. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 controverted all the material averments and reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. It is also submitted that vehicle delivered to the complainant was defect free from the beginning and at the time of first free service (visit-1) job card dated 9-10-2013, it was found that complainant had got unauthorized fitments in the car i.e. Non MGA Stereo. Again at the time of second service job card dated 20-11-2013, it was found that there were additional fitments of unapproved accessories found in the car door trim and speaker. It was due to the loose fitting of right trim and speakers on the vehicle which gave abnormal noise. The complainant was informed about the same via e-mail dated 27-2-2014 by Sh. Gaurav Negi, TSM, Tara Automobiles. The complainant never complained about water entering in car from front glass. The complainant has leveled this false allegation in order to strengthen his false case.

10. It is also pleaded that warranty of the complainant's car had disqualified under Clause 4 (7) of the Warranty Policy, which is reproduced as under :-

    “Clause 4(7) – The warranty shall not apply to vehicle on which parts of accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used”.

11. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 22-3-2014 and 27-1-2015 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-21), photocopy of certificate of registration (Ex. C-2), photocopy of delivery challan (Ex.C-3), photocopy of policy schedule (Ex. C-4), photocopy of table of contents (Ex. C-5), photocopies of free inspection coupons (Ex.C-6 & Ex.C-8), photocopy of e-mails (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-11), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-12), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-13 to Ex. C-15) and photocopies of job cards (Ex. C-16 to Ex. C-20).

13. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 1-6-2015 of Sh. Gurjinder Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), copies of job cards (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/6) and photocopy of warranty terms (Ex. OP-1/7).

14. Opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 25-3-2015 of Sh. Ketan Rautela (Ex. OP-2/1) and photocopy of dealership agreement (Ex, OP-2/2).

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

16. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that as per averments of the complainant his car started having problem of vibration and abnormal noise from all the windows. The complainant has placed on record job sheets Ex. C-17, Ex. C-18 and Ex. C-20. All these prove that it was complained that there is abnormal noise from the dashboard and doors. The opposite parties have also not categorically disputed this fact. The only stand of the opposite parties is that this is due to the fact that complainant has got unauthorized fitments in the car which is Non MGA Stereo. There is nothing to show that only due to fitment of Non MGA Stereo, there will be vibration/sound from all the windows. Therefore, it is not believable that fault is only due to installation of Stereo. The complainant has also placed on record copy of e-mail Ex. C-11 which is in reply to the complaint of complainant. In this mail, there is reference that water is entering in the vehicle. It is rather assured that this complaint will be resolved. Therefore, this document proves that complainant reported about this defect also. It is not the case of the opposite parties that this defect has been resolved. Therefore, the complaint be accepted and the relief prayed for be granted.

17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties are bound by the terms and conditions contained in Owner's Manual and Service Booklet. This booklet was provided to the complainant at the time of sale of vehicle. It is categorically mentioned in it that “this warranty shall not apply to : any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used.” The complainant has used unauthorized fitments in the car i.e. Non MGA Stereo. The documents relied upon by the complainant (job cards) also proves that this sound was only due to fitment of Non MGA Stereo. In e-mail (Ex. C-11) it was made clear to the complainant that noise from the door was due to loose fitting of right trim and speakers on the vehicle, stereo, speakers and seat covers are all Non MGA fitted. Therefore, in this case, the warranty is not applicable due to use of non genuine fitments.

18. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that even otherwise the complainant was made aware vide e-mail (Ex. C-11) that in order to resolve complaints of the complainant, he will have to give the vehicle to the workshop for one day but he did not agree. In these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service.

19. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

20. It is not disputed that complainant purchased vehicle on 16-09-2013. Job Cards Ex. C-17 is dated 20-11-2013, Ex. C-18 dated 25-11-2013 and Ex. C-19 is dated 10-12-2013. In all these job cards, it is mentioned that complainant reported abnormal noise from dashboard. Therefore, the defect was reported to the opposite parties by the complainant at the earliest i.e. within two months. The opposite parties have also not disputed that complainant reported about abnormal sound and vibration from the windows of the vehicle. The opposite parties are taking shield of terms and conditions detailed in Onwer's Manual & Service Booklet. Of course as per condition No. (4) (7), it is mentioned that any vehicle on which parts or accessories not approved by Maruti Suzuki have been used will not be covered under this warranty. But in this case, it is not the case of the opposite parties that complainant has got replaced any part or accessories with non approved parts. As per opposite parties, the complainant has got installed Stereo, which is not approved by Maruti Suzuki but it is not believable that sound/vibration of windows is due to this effect. Installation of Stereo patently has no connection with the sound/vibration from the windows. Vide e-mail Ex. C-11 the opposite parties have also admitted that on checking the vehicle, it was observed that the noise from dashboard is observed when the vehicle is driven at low speed on high gear. Of course, it is further reported that noise from the door was due to loose fitting of right trim and speakers on the vehicle, but in order to remove this defect, the opposite parties were able to tight the fitting of right trim if it was only due to loose fitting. In these circumstances, the conclusion is that the opposite parties have failed to effect the repairs, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

21. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with cost of Rs. 3,000/- against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to repair the car of the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions.

22. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

23. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

24. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    17-11-2015

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member