Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a car of MICRA DCI – XI, Sunshine Orange colour at a price of Rs. 5,63,465/- with the financial assistance from HDFC Bank under the terms and conditions.  At the time of purchase the said vehicle was covered under the warranty period of two years which was further extended for a period of two years on payment of Rs. 7,530/- to the op by the complainant on 11.03.2013 and was valid up to 21.04.2015 and at the time of purchasing the said vehicle, op assured that the parts of the vehicle was available in the market as and when it required.

          The said vehicle got set back on 31.03.2013 during the warranty period as such the complainant handed over the vehicle at the workshop of the op on 31.03.2013 and by that date op forwarded the copy of Initial Inspection Sheetshowing the defect i.e. starting problem, engine knocking, both MIL Light glowing, fan belt and on 01.04.2013 the op called the complainant at their workshop and advised to replace the battery and to remove the starting problem.  So, complainant purchased the battery on 06.04.2013 and the old battery was replaced and the op handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 13.04.2013 but the starting problem was not solved.

          On 13.05.2013 the said vehicle developed starting problem, so the vehicle was handed over to the op on the same day and it was returned back to the complainant but again on 28.05.2013 the vehicle developed starting problem and on the same day it was again handed over to the op and they returned back to the complainant on 19.06.2013 but on the same day in course of trial again the starting problem developed and it was delivered to the op on 22.06.2013.

          Thereafter the said vehicle did not run but again technical problem started.  So, the vehicle was handed over on 06.12.2013 to remove the said defects and other problems of the vehicle after removing the defect up to 15.01.2014.  So, a notice was duly forwarded on behalf of the complainant through their Ld. Advocate with a request to deliver the possession of the said vehicle intact running condition along with damages being Rs. 76,500/-.  On receipt of the notice on 17.01.2014 op called the complainant and received from him Rs. 25,641/- being the cost of spare parts, labour charges etc. vide Invoice dated 06.02.2014 and on 07.02.2014 delivered the vehicle to the complainant and again same technical problem started and vehicle was again handed over to the op till then the vehicle is in possession of the op.

          But truth is that till now the vehicle is under cover with the warranty period.  So, op is bound to make the vehicle road working at their own risk and responsibility without causing any problem to the complainant and for the negligent and deficient manner of service on their part and for violating the terms and conditions of the warranty, complainant is suffering day to day in attending business as well as other work and the complainant have to hire vehicle from the market and to pay them the charges  at the rate Rs. 1,500/- per day and practically for negligent and deficient manner of service and violating the terms and conditions the present complaint is filed.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement has submitted that the entire statement is false and fabricated and complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties that is manufacturing company.s Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd.  It is specifically stated that Chandrani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. is the dealer of Nissan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and also is service provider under the contract with the said Nissan Motors Pvt. Ltd.  Fact is that complainant purchased the car being Model K-XIII MY Micra – DCI – XI of Sunshine Orange Colour being Chasis No. MDHFCUK13b1001616 and vehicle registration No. WB-06G-1249 for the price of Rs. 5,63,465/-. 

          Complainant purchased after being satisfied with the particulars of the car details and he was served with booklet and brochure published by the manufacturer Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and no doubt the car was covered under warranty for the period of two years from the date of purchase and further period of two years warranty was extended for a period from 11.03.2013 to 21.04.2015.  The manufacturer of Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. warrants new vehicle for a designated period of 24 months or specific millage of 50,000 Kms. whichevercomes first and the new vehicle warranty covers all parts and components of Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. for manufacturing defect except for tire and those items are not covered by warranty and tires are covered by a separate warranty and any accessories or equipment installed by person other than Nissan Motors dealer or distributor etc.  But in case of damage or failures resulting from misuse, accident, theft or fire and use of improper or dirty, fluids or lubricants and lack of performance of proper maintenance services as outlined in the owner.s manual and the maintenance section in the booklet and that matter does not cover warranty.  Op submits that the car in question came to the service centre of the op on various dates for checkup, free service, for repairs caused due to accident and also other for cause and on all occasions op gave proper service.  But as per warranty the said service was given.  But in respect of the accidental damages there was no warranty.

          It is specifically mentioned that on 20.11.2013 the car came with the damage of front bumper from and rear right hand side door, rear right hand side quarter panel denting in the service centre of the op.  But as there is no bumper parts in the service centre it was previously ordered for supply to the manufacturer for supply of the said parts of the said vehicle and complainant took back the car on temporary basis after insurance inspection due to non-availability of the front bumper parts.  Again on 07.12.2013 complainant came to the service centre with the said vehicle with a complain of water mix with fuel and the front bumper parts received in work shop from the manufacturer on 11.12.2013 and on 12.12.2013 valve assembly and tensioner assembly belt parts ordered for starting the car and the valve assembly and tensioner assembly belt parts were received in the workshop on 09.01.2014 and after subsequent inspection and second diagnosis the mechanic found problem on 17.01.2014.  The body work of the car was done on 28.01.2014 and the glow plug received in workshop on 05.02.2004 and the car was ready for delivery on 06.02.2014 and the complainant was informed.  Complainant received the car on 06.02.2014.  But the car again came to the workshop on 10.02.2014 with problem MIL Light and fuel injector.  Fuel injector was adjusted on 07.04.2014 and finally complainant took delivery the car on 05.02.2014. 

          It is further submitted that the op undertook repair of horn assembly election on 30.11.2011.  Fact remains that as per subsequent warranty for Caliper assembly replacement for break noise on 16.05.2013 and in fact on 01.04.2013 the car was placed to the service centre for causing accident but there is no warranty for repairing works.  Further the car came in the service center on 28.05.2013 with complain of MIL light glowing and gear shifting problem and the problem was detected.  Again the car came to the service centre on 19.06.2013 that was also attended by the workshop because it was under warranty period.  Further the car came to the service centre on 26.06.2013 with the complaint of engine vibration and the car was attended and service was done within the warranty coverage.  But the allegations of the complainant are found false and fabricated.   It is specifically stated that as per averments due to accident of the car, order was placed and same was repaired and then it was found on good condition and was running without any complain and in such a state of affairs the complainant took delivery of the car from the op on 02.05.2014 though the car was made completely ready for delivery on 09.04.2014 and accordingly the complaint is baseless and truth is that the op rendered all services reasonably and there is no deficiency of the op and op denied the dispute by stating that the complainant tried to grab huge money from the op, so, the complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          After thorough study of the complaint and written version including the documents as filed by the complainant and the op it is clear that the car was purchased by the complainant from the op which is undisputed and truth is that on 20.04.2011 complainant purchased the said car from the op company manufactured by Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and warranty period was from 20.04.2011 to 10.03.2012.  Thereafter complainant again renewed the warranty of vehicle on 11.03.2013 and extended period of warranty was 11.03.2013 to 21.04.2013 and after considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the op and complainantalso considering the warranty period it is found that as per first warranty against new vehicle, there was specific warranty for a designated period of 24 months for replacement and that period already expired and the extended warranty is for repairing and changing the certain parts within the warranty period if there is any problem of the said car.

          So, considering that fact it is clear that on the basis of the present warranty period, complainant is not entitled to get any new vehicle.  When during the first warranty period, no manufacturing defect of the car was detected.  Further considering the report that is the service report of the op in respect of the said car, it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the car but fact remains that the complainant on many occasions appeared along with the car because the car faced accident and on 24 occasions the car placed for repairing and op in all occasions attended the complainant.s car for repairing after replacing the new spare parts and after taking the same from the manufacturer.  It is also proved that op in all respect rendered their service and made the damaged car road able and pliable and truth is that lastly on 02.05.2014 complainant took delivery of the car though complainant was reported that the car was ready for delivery on 09.05.2014.

          But in the present case after proper evaluation of the evidence and the materials it is found that complainant has made allegation that during the period from 29.10.2013 and from 06.12.2013 to 15.01.2014 op.s workshop failed to give proper service for want of parts and for which for that period complainant was compelled to hire vehicle and in this regard we have gathered from the record that in both the occasions complainant faced accident and car was damaged.  So, thorough check-up and removal of several parts were required and in all cases op sent to the manufacturer and on receipt of the new parts placed it and complainant received the same on proper receipt without any objection and being satisfied.  So, it is clear that there was no deficiency on the part of the ops.

          Moreover it is further found that in 3 or 4 occasions car was damaged due to accident which is evident from the service center report and for making it free from all problem new spare parts was brought from the manufacturer and thereafter it was placed and the car was made free from complain and complainant took it and further we have considered all the papers that is service center report etc. and it is found that it is not manufacturing problem of the vehicle but major problem is due to accident that means same are not covered by the second warranty.  Even then op repaired at free of cost as per warranty and always attended the vehicle and made it free from any problem by replacing new parts in place of damaged parts.  So, it is proved that the defect of the parts were not manufacturing defect but the damages due to accident faced by the said vehicle of the complainant.

          But peculiar factor is that the complainant has suppressed the above fact that in 4 occasions his vehicle faced an accident during the period of second warranty.  But during first warranty period there was no defect or no problem and further it is found that all problems of the vehicle was caused due to facing accident by the complainant.  So, we are convinced to hold that this complaint is filed by the complainant with vexatious allegation against the op and truth is that complainant has brought concocted stories about negligence and deficient manner of service and also manufacturing defect of the vehicle and to grab money what has become the choice of the complainant in so many cases has filed such vexatious case and waste time of this Forum and at the same time to harass the service provider and considering that fact this Forum is of opinion that this complaint is full of vexatious allegations and no doubt in such sort of cases complainant should be imposed penalty for filing such vexatious complaint and by suppressing the truth and in oath stated false statement before this Forum.

          Thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED        

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the op.  But considering the vexatious complaint and for filing such a false complaint by suppressing the truth, the complainant is imposed penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum within 15 days failing which penal action shall be started against the complainant for that u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be imposed and for which further penalty and fine may be imposed against the complainant.