District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.450/2021.
Date of Institution: 07.09.2021.
Date of Order: 20.09.2022.
Perweshwar Singh Chauhan s/o Shri Sukhbir Singh Chauhan, age -35 years R/o House No.18, on Hanuman Mandir road and in front of St. Surdas Park, Ecator-8, Faridabad – 121006.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 –A, 19/6 Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad through its Managing Director.
2. M/s. Maruti Suziki India Ltd., Old Gurugaon – Delhi road, Gurugam, through its Managing Director.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. S.S.Chuahan, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ashok Kashyap, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was the owner in possession of a Ciaz Smart Hybrid ZD1 Maruti car Model 2017, bearing vehicle regd. NO. HR 26 DD 3504 which he had purchased from the showroom of the opposite party NO.1 on 2nd March 2017. This car had been manufactured by the opposite party No2. The complainant had given the above car to his father, namely Shri Sukhbir Singh Chauhan for making use of it. The father of the complainant generally uses this car from this residence in Sector-8 to the court premises in Sector-12 and vice versa and for nearby market purposes. Somewhere in the mid of the month of February, 2021 the father of the complainant had noticed a red light blinking in battery shape on the dash board of the car. This light appeared on the dash board of the car while driving for about two days and then it disappeared for the next two days. It appeared again on the 5th day and did not go. The father of the complainant unaware of the reason behind blinking of the red light continued to drive the car during the said four days. On the 5th day when the light appeared again after remaining off for the two previous days, took this car on a shop of an electrician who repairs car in Sector-7, Market of Faridabad. This electrician disconnected one of the wire/cable from the car battery while keeping the engine on to find out the reasons behind for the appearance of the red light on the dash board. He noticed that the engine of the car was running after disconnection of the wire/cable from the car battery. He told to the father of the complainant that some cable coming from the battery alternator had become loose so there was nothing to worry and he advised the father of the complainant to make use of the car and whenever get time to go to the cars service station then got the electrical cable checked from them. The father of the complainant continued to use the car on the advice of this electrician. In the last week of February, 2021 i.e. on 24th of February, 2021 the father of the complainant went by this car to the Punjab National Bank, Sector-7, Faridabad and parked this car in front of the market of Sector-7, Faridabad. When he wanted to return to his home after completing the work of the bank then the car did not start. He called a car mechanic from the market of Sector-7, Faridabad. This mechanic after checking the car noticed that car battery was not working. He called an electrician with a battery to get assured of the defect. These people after checking the car told to the father of the complainant the car battery had gone down. When the father of the complainant informed them that it was a new battery purchased by him a few months earlier then they told him that then the battery alternator was not charging the battery and they advised the father of the complainant to get the car checked from the authorized maruti service station as the car was hybrid. The father of the complainant then telephonically called an employee from the shop form where he had purchased the car battery i.e. M/s. Khanna Motors Shop No.7, YMCA, Chowk, Mathura Road, Faridabad and gave the car battery to him for charging at his shop. The next day i.e. on 25th February 2021 he received has car battery after it was charged fully. On 26.02.2021 he took this car to the service stations of the opposite party No.1 at YMCA Chowk for getting the car checked and to get it repaired. An employee of the opposite party No.1 who was checking other cars in the parking area of the premises of the service station of the opposite party NO.1, where the father of the complainant had also parked his car, had suggested to the father of the complainant to bring the car on Monday as next two days no work would be under taken in the service station and the car would remain parked there unnecessarily. The father of the complainant therefore brought the car back. For some reasons he could not take the care to the service station non Monday as was advised. ON 4th March 2021 while the father of the complainant was driving the car on road for going to market had he car accident when a stone or stone like object flew from the rear wheel of the ahead going vehicle and struck against the front glass/wind screen of the car of the complainant causing thereby damage to the wind screen. The father of the complainant had suddenly applied break to the car at that moment to save him and the car but due to sudden applying of the break, the vehicle coming behind the car hit the car in the back and caused damage to the rear bumper of the car of the complainant. The father of the complainant had then given this car in the body shop of opposite party No.1 for repair on 10.03.2021 as well as for removing the defect of the blinking of the red light of battery shape on the dash board of the car. The opposite party No.1 on checking diagnosed why the red light in battery shape was blinking on the dash board of the car. The manager of the service department informed to the father of the complainant that it was due to not working of the alternator/MSU Assy. Etc whose function was to charge the car battery when the car engine was on. He said that alternator/MGU Assy. Etc. were required to be replaced and for that purpose he had ordered to replace the same. This manager had also informed to the father of the complainant that the warranty period for these items was 4 years or funning of the car upto 1,00,000,00 kms., whichever occurs first after the date of purchase of the car. He had said that the period of 4 years of warranty had ended on 01.03.2021 whereas the car had been brought to the service station on 10.03.2021 i.e. after 9 days of the expiry of the warranty period so he had said that the aforesaid items cannot be replaced in the period of warranty or free of cost. The father of the complainant had informed to the said manager about all the true and real facts as said above i.e that the particular defect had arisen in the car in the month of February, 2021 i.e. before the date of 01.03.2021 and he had brought the car to the service station for its repair on 26.02.2021 but he was returned as said already. He also informed him that meter reading showing the running of the car was also below the reading of the allowed meter reading for warranty i.e. below 1,00,000 kms. Or even below to 33,824 kms. But the manager of the service department did not agree to replace the aforesaid items in the period of warranty.
On 15.04.2021 the father of the complainant had paid Rs.52,455/- to the opposite party No.1 through his debit card for the replacement of the Tensioner Assy. Belt and MGU Assy. The two receipts issued by the opposite party No.1 of having received the amount from the complainant and bank account statement of the father of the complainant and the bill prepared by the opposite party No.1 towards replacement of above items, wherein the car running mileage was shown as 33824 kms. When the job card by the body shop was prepared on 12.03.2021 and must be lower to it when the car was given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 for repair on 10.03.2021 which was evident from the copy of job card received by the complainant. A bill prepared by the opposite party No.1 towards the work performed by the body shop was showing the running of the car upto the aforesaid mileage of 33813 kms. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay Rs.52,455/- with interest to the complainant which the complainant had paid to the opposite party No.1 for getting the Tensioner Assy. Belt and MGU Assy. Replaced in his car bearing regd. No. HR26 DD 3504 due to defect arisen in the period of warranty.
b) pay Rs. 55,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses.
d) pay Rs.25,00/- which he and his father had paid in hiring the private vehicle(s).
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant purchased his vehicle in question e.f. Ciaz Smart Hybrid ZDI Maruti car model 2017 bearing vehicle registration NO. HR 26DD 3504 on 3rd March, 2017 with two years extended warranty which was expired on 2.3.2021. It was most respectfully submitted that this answering opposite party was an authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Under an agreement on principle to principle basis and had to adhere the policies, guidelines and direction of its principle for the ultimate benefit and taking care of End user of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles. Under the dealership agreement, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd did not sold its product directly to any of the intended purchaser but sold their products through its dealer net work through India and abroad. The vehicle sold to the customer carries two years warranty provided by the manufacturer i.e. MSIL to cover any of manufacturing defects as defined in the warranty book let and customer manual provided to the customer alongwith the vehicle at the time of purchase of any vehicle. During the service of any vehicle if any manufacturing defect was found, the same was reported to its principle and the said defect after having being satisfied with the same, was replaced free of cost under the terms and condition of warranty only. As per warranty conditions, every new vehicle, which was purchased from any of the dealer was covered with a manufacturing warranty clause to cover the manufacturing defect for 2 years or upto a mileage of 40000 kms. Form the date of purchase whichever event occurs first. However, the purchaser of new vehicle had option to purchase the extended warranty for further period of 2 years as per the policy of the principle company of this answering opposite party. The principle company of this answering opposite aprty warrants that at its sole discretion would replace or repair any part found to be defective and attributable faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture at no cost of the owner. The intention of the warranty provided to cover any defect that might occur during the normal sue of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of warranty form an intergral part of the sale contract agreed to and accepted by the complainant voluntarily. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 3rd of March 2017 with an extended warranty of 2 years which expired on 2.3.2021. As per vehicle history maintained, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of this answering opposite arty on 10.03.2021 for accidental repair work when a job card NO. JC 20014017 dated 12.03.2021 was opened and the demanded service was sought by the complainant was windshield glass replacement and rear bumper. Since the job work was to be done under insurance cover, the due survey of the vehicle was to be conducted by the surveyor of the insurance company and only its approval, the demanded job was to be completed and hence the tentative date for return of vehicle was provided to the customer of 19.3.2021. The movement , the clearance was provided by the insurance company, the vehicle of the present complainant was delivered on 19.3.2021. At the time of getting repair of his vehicle, the complainant had not reported any problem pertaining to blinking of light at the dash board of the vehicle nor any defect in the vehicle was appearing when it was finally delivered to the customer with his entire satisfaction only. The said vehicle was again brought to the workshop of this answering opposite party only on 09.04.2021 when this particular was reported by the customer and a job card bearing NO. JC21000391 was prepared and the demanded repair was done on paid basis with the consent of the complainant only. Now thereafter with after thoughts only, the complainant raised this issue to get the MGU assembly to be covered under warranty only and now agitating this issue before this Hon’ble Commission. It was submitted that the MGU assembly was the motor generator unit which was a part of Maruti’s smart hybrid vehicle system. It was simply an electrical machine. When operating as a motor, the MGU converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. When it operates as a generator the MGU converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. In case, there was any trouble in NGU, it was reflected on the dashboard which indicate to get the defect arrested with immediate effect. Thus when this problem was reported to this answering opposite party, it was immediately attended and the MGU unit was replaced. Since the warranty of the above vehicle was expired, the said MGU could not be replaced under warranty free of cost and the due cost of the same was charged from the customer. The complainant was raising this issue in his subsequent complaint but had never raised the same complaint before this Hon’ble Commission in his prior complaint bearing consumer case No. 346 of 2021 which was instituted on 20.07.2021 and exparte order was pronounced on false facts without giving an opportunity of hearing to the said complaint case and decided the case without merit on 14.12.2021. While it was very much mentioned in the complaint case that the vehicle of the complainant was brought for repair under insurance claim and this answering opposite party should deliver the car only on getting his cost of repair/replacement of part either from customer and on from insurance company. The insurance company reimbursed the cost only of front bumber and denied the cost of rear bumper which was charged from the customer but this Hon’ble commission heard the false and purported complaint and directed the answering opposite party to pay the cost of the bumper instead of granting the cost specifically on insurance company under which the vehicle was insured. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had alleged that in the month of February, 2021 a red light blinking in battery shape on the dash board was observed in the vehicle and the same was reported to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 26.02.2021. It had further been alleged that the workshop of opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to come after two days. Admittedly, the vehicle in question met with an accident on 04.03.2021 and the vehicle was sent to the workshop of opposite party NO.1 on 10.3.2021 where the concern of red light blinking was reported as alleged. It was submitted that the complainant had filed a false and frivolous complaint to obtain undue gains from the answering opposite party. The reality of the matter was that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 26.08.2020 at 30448 kms for periodic maintenance service. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. It was submitted that after this visit, the vehicle was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 12.03.2021 for accidental repairs. In between these visits, the alleged concern of red light blinking in dash board was never reported as alleged. The complainant had failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim or prove the visit to the workshop on 26.02.2021. This clearly indicates that the complainant, in a futile attempt, had tried to build a false case in order to obtain undue gains from the answering opposite party. It was submitted that when the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the answering opposite party on 12.3.2021, the warranty and extended warranty for 4 years had concluded. Hence there was no obligation left to be performed on the part of the answering opposite party. Even otherwise, any repairs arising out of accident could not have been covered under warranty as per Clause 2© as enumerated in the extended warranty. Hence, the complainant entered into an independent transaction for repairs with opposite party No.1 to which the answering opposite party was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. It was submitted that the obligation of answering opposite party under the warranty, which was part and parcel of the sale, was specific as set out in the warranty (clause 3) as enumerated in the Owner’s manual and service booklet. The answering opposite party was only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e 2 years or 40,000 kms. From the date of sale. The said warranty was subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in owner’s manual & service booklet. Apart from above warranty, the complainant had opted for extended warranty for another 2 years or 40,000 kms. From conclusion of warranty. The vehicle was purchased by the customer on 03.03.2017 and the extended warranty concluded on 02.03.2021 by efflux of time. Hence, when the vehicle was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 12.03.2021 for accidental repairs, the complainant entered into an independent transaction for repairs with opposite party No.1. The answering opposite party was neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. The answering opposite party had always fulfilled its warranty obligations and there was no deficiency in service, neglect or default on the part of answering opposite party of any nature. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. Vipul Motors Pvt. Ltd. and anothers with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.52,455/- with interest to the complainant which the complainant had paid to the opposite party No.1 for getting the Tensioner Assy. Belt and MGU Assy. Replaced in his car bearing regd. No. HR26 DD 3504 due to defect arisen in the period of warranty. b) pay Rs. 55,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 35,000 /-as litigation expenses. d) pay Rs.25,00/- which he and his father had paid in hiring the private vehicle(s).
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A 0 affidavit of Perweshwar Singh, Ex.CW-1 – RC, Ex.CW-2 – job card, Ex.CW1/3 – Estimate/quotation, Ex.CW1/4 – Motor Insurance Claim Form, Ex,CW1/5 & 6– Receipts,, Ex.CW1/7 – bank statement,, Ex.CW1/8 - Job card Retail – tax invoice,, Ex.CW1/9 – tax invoice, Ex.CW1/10 – email,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.2strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2, Ex.RW2/A- affidavit of Shri Yatharth Pandey So Shri P.S.Pandey working for Maruti Suzuki India Limited (formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited) having its registered office at plot No.1, Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi, Annexure R-2/1 – Dealership Agreement, Annex, - Warranty policy, Annx.R/3 – extended warranty terms and conditions, Annx. R-2/4 – Vehicle history. Ex.RE2/5 (colly) Owner details
7. In this case, the complainant has replaced the spare parts of the vehicle in question and paid Rs.52,455/ to the dealer i.e opposite party No.1 which was in warranty. On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.2. i.e M/s. Maruti Suziki India Ltd. argued at length and submitted the ownership of the vehicle in question vide Ex,RW2/5 (colly). It was transferred in the name of Sunil Kumar Papneja vide Ex.RW2/5(colly) . No doubt, the vehicle in question was in warranty and spare parts were replaced and the payment was made by the complainant. As per document submitted by opposite party No.2 i.e Maruti Udyog vide Annexure X owner of the vehicle is Sunil Kumar Papneja, Counsel for opposite party No.2 argued that we are ready to pay if the vehicle in question is in the name of the complainant. Complaint is allowed, subject to verification of the ownership of the vehicle in question from the Registration Authority, Hansi. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 20.09.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
