BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 90 of 2014

Date of Institution: 18.02.2014

Date of Decision: 26.10.2015

Shri Kabal Singh son of Shri Nishan Singh, resident of H.No. 4/461, GaliNo.3, Krishana Nagar, Near Jaura Fatak, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Jaycee Motors, Authorized Maruti Dealers, 1274, East Mohan Nagar, G.T.Road, Amritsar, through its proprietor/ partner/ Manager or any other person competent to receive summons.
2. M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Registered Office: Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Chairman/ Managing Director or any other person competent to receive summons.  

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Subodh Salwan, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Sh.S.K.Davessar, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kabal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one New Swift VDI BS IV Model Car, bearing Engine No.D-13A0403540, Chassis No.MA3FHB1S00467444 manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2, from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 312 dated 23.7.2013 for a total consideration of Rs.6,26,578/-. Said car was covered under warranty provided by the company and even as per certificate dated 16.7.2013, said car was also covered under extended warranty valid upto 14.7.2016 for which additional charges of Rs.6,898/- were obtained by Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that on 8.1.2014 when Sh.Pawandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant, had taken the said car for his personal use at Ludhiana. In the evening at 5.00 pm he parked the car and when he came out after 10 to 15 minutes, it was found that the said car had caught fire on its own while in a stationery condition and with the help of other relatives, the said fire could be extinguished. The car was damaged on that account. Upon taking up the matter with M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company at Ludhiana, it was informed by them that in order to find out cause of fire, entire engine has to be dismantled and complete repair bill is to be charged for the said purpose which clearly shows that the said defect had occurred due to manufacturing defect in the car which was brand new and used hardly for 6 months. The spontaneous fire occurred in the engine of the car was the result of manufacturing defect in the car manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2 and the complainant however was lucky one that no family member or he himself was sitting in the car with the God’s grace and in such an event anything could have occurred to the life and property of the complainant or his family members. Accordingly, as per the advice of the Opposite Party No.1, the said car  handed over to the said authorized service centre has not been repaired due to the manufacturing defect as per letter dated 11.1.2014 received by the complainant from said service centre. As the vehicle has suffered loss due to manufacturing defect and is beyond repair, therefore, the Opposite Parties  are liable to replace the said car with a new one.           Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle in question with a new one. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant purchased the car in question from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 23.7.2013 and 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free routine maintenance services were rendered by Opposite Party No.1 to the car of the complainant with his full satisfaction. During these free routine maintenance services, the complainant neither reported any problem to the Opposite Party No.1 nor any problem was observed in the car.  The performance of the vehicle was found as per set parameters and in defect free condition. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the complaint merits dismissal on this score. Further more, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has intentionally and willfully not impleaded M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company, Ludhiana and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, with which the vehicle in question was insured, as parties to the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the notice of this Forum and as such the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has already received the insurance claim in respect of the vehicle in question from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from the Opposite Party No.1 and more particularly when the warranty period has already lapsed. It is pertinent to mention here that the insurance company after its detailed investigation found external fitment of non-standard/ unapproved accessories. Moreover, as per the information supplied by M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company, Ludhiana, the vehicle in question was towed to the workshop of the said dealer for body repair on 9.1.2014 at 15,960 KMs. The complainant got the said car repaired facilitated the complainant to raise claim of the damaged vehicle from the insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, consequent whereupon the complainant lodged his claim with the said company, but the said insurance company vide email dated 24.1.2014 refused to approved the repairs under insurance cover and advised the said dealer to intimate the same to the complainant. However, Mr.Baljit Singh, G.M. workshop of the said dealer took up the matter with insurance company vide email dated 24.1.2014 and requested the insurance company to assign the reason for repudiation of claim of the complainant. The insurance company vide its reply e-mail dated 301.2014 forwarded the same pictures and stated fitment of non-standard accessories on the vehicle. Even the service engineer of the said workshop had also taken some photographs and found fitted with unapproved/ non standard connections and the wiring was tempered by some local mechanic. However, the insurance company agreed to settle the claim on substandard basis by sharing the cost of repair at 60:40 ratio basis. Said dealer shared the said settlement with the complainant vide e-mail dated 13.2.2014 and sought his consent for carrying out repairs under insurance as approved by the insurance company. Vide e-mail dated 14.2.2014, the complainant gave his consent to carry out repairs and hence, the vehicle was got repaired by the said dealer. It is wrong that due to manufacturing defect, the engine of the vehicle was required to be dismantled to assess the reason of fire and the loss caused to the vehicle. After taking approval from the complainant, the vehicle was inspected and the photographs were taken by the surveyor of the insurance company. The surveyor of the insurance company found various unapproved fitment and non standard (high voltage) accessories in the vehicle which was the reason for repudiating the insurance claim. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 being the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40000 KMs, whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The said warranty is not absolute but subject to certain terms, conditions and limitations as set out in the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet provided to the complainant  and the same is part and parcel of sale contract. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatin Sharma, Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Similarly, Opposite Party No. 2  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Akshit Varinder Gupta Ex.OP2/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2.     
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant purchased Swift VDI BS IV Model Car, bearing Engine No.D-13A0403540, Chassis No.MA3FHB1S00467444 from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2, vide Invoice No. 312 dated 23.7.2013 Ex.C8. Said car was also covered under extended warranty valid upto 14.7.2016 as per certificate of extended warranty registration Ex.C7. On 8.1.2014 when Sh.Pawandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant, had taken the said car to  Ludhiana, in the evening at 5.00 pm  he parked the car and when he came out after 10 to 15 minutes, it was found that the said car had caught fire on its own while in a stationery condition and with the help of other relatives, the said fire could be extinguished. However, the car was damaged badly. Said car was taken to M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company at Ludhiana,  who informed that in order to find out cause of fire, entire engine has to be dismantled. Complainant submitted that all this shows that said defect  had occurred due to manufacturing defect in the car as it was new one purchased  hardly 6 months back. The complainant was lucky enough  that none family member of the complainant was sitting in the car  at the time when the said car caught fire. As per the advice of the Opposite Party No.1, the said car  was handed over to the aforesaid authorized service centre, who did not repair the car due to  manufacturing defect as per their  letter dated 11.1.2014 Ex.C3 received by the complainant from said service centre. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this happened due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle of the complainant. Opposite Parties  were informed and requested to pay compensation, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant purchased the car in question from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 23.7.2013.  1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd free routine maintenance services were rendered by Opposite Party No.1 to the car of the complainant to his full satisfaction and during these free routine maintenance services, the complainant neither reported any problem to the Opposite Party No.1 nor any problem was observed by the Technical/ Engineering staff of the Opposite Party No.1. The performance of the vehicle was found as per set parameters and in defect free condition. The complainant has intentionally and willfully not impleaded M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company, Ludhiana and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, with which the vehicle in question was insured as parties to the present complaint. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the notice of this Forum. The complainant has already received the insurance claim in respect of the vehicle in question from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. The vehicle is now running properly  without any defect. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the Opposite Parties. It is further alleged that the insurance company after its detailed investigation found external fitment of non-standard/ unapproved accessories. The vehicle in question was taken to M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company on  9.1.2014 at 15,960 KMs. The complainant got the said car repaired under the insurance cover and the said authorized service centre facilitated the complainant to raise claim of the damaged vehicle from the insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. Consequently, the  complainant lodged his claim with the said company, but the said insurance company vide email dated 24.1.2014 Ex.OP2/3 refused to approve the repairs under insurance cover. Mr.Baljit Singh, G.M. workshop of the said dealer M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Ludhiana took up the matter with insurance company vide email dated 24.1.2014 and requested the insurance company to assign the reason for repudiation of claim of the complainant. The insurance company vide its reply e-mail dated 30.1.2014 forwarded the same pictures and stated fitment of non-standard accessories on the vehicle. Even the service engineer of the said workshop had also taken some photographs and found fitted with unapproved/ non standard connections and the wiring was tempered by some local mechanic. However, the insurance company agreed to settle the claim on substandard basis by sharing the cost of repair at 60:40 ratio. Said Authorized Service Centre shared the aforesaid settlement with the complainant vide e-mail dated 13.2.2014 and sought his consent for carrying out repairs under insurance as approved by the insurance company. Vide e-mail dated 14.2.2014, the complainant gave his consent to carry out repairs, therefore, the vehicle was got repaired by the said service centre. It is wrong that due to manufacturing defect, the engine of the vehicle was required to be dismantled to assess the reason of fire and the loss caused to the vehicle. The vehicle was then inspected and the photographs were taken by the surveyor of the insurance company. The surveyor of the insurance company found various unapproved fitment and non standard  accessories in the vehicle which was the reason for repudiating the insurance claim. The complainant was explained the cause of fire and he gave consent to the said authorized service centre to carry out the repair of payment basis under the insurance cover by sharing the cost of repair at 60:40 ratio as approved by the insurance company. All these facts have been intentionally and willfully concealed by the complainant from the notice of this Forum to mislead this Forum and to misuse the process of law. Opposite Parties denied that the loss to the car occurred due to manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. Opposite Parties  therefore, prayed  that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the  complainant purchased the car in question from Opposite Party No.1 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2, vide invoice dated 23.7.2013 Ex.C8 with extended warranty upto 14.7.2016 vide certificate of extended warranty registration Ex.C7.  On 8.1.2014 said car was taken to Ludhiana by Pawandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant and he parked the same at Ludhiana in the evening at about 5 PM and when he came out after 10-15 minutes, he found that said car had caught fire when it was in stationery condition, as a result of which, said car was damaged. The complainant informed the police of Police Station Sherpur, Ludhiana in this regard vide letter Ex.C2 and the complainant also reported the matter to Opposite Parties  and took the car to M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company at Ludhiana, but they refused to repair the car and they wrote a letter dated 11.1.2014 Ex.C3 to the complainant in which they submitted that said authorized service centre had taken up the matter regarding the loss to the vehicle with the insurer of the car i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, who deputed the surveyor Mr.Jaswinder Singh had approved to dismantle the vehicle, but the complainant reported to the surveyor that he is not willing to avail cashless facility. So, said M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company, Ludhiana shall repair the car on payment basis which are to be paid by the complainant. Said ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, vide   e-mail dated 24.1.2014 informed the said authorized service centre i.e. M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Authorized Service Centre of Maruti Company, Ludhiana that the insurance company will not be liable for this claim, until after investigation  the cause  of fire is made known to them. Said insurance company after investigation found that the cause of incident was not manufacturing defect, but is external one and the said M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Ludhiana found that the complainant got fitted the      non-standard accessories on the vehicle from some unauthorized person i.e. alloy wheel, stereo, etc. which were the cause of incident i.e. fire. Then insurance company i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, agreed to pay the claim on 60:40 ratio basis and the complainant gave consent in this regard. Then said M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Ludhiana, authorized service centre repaired the vehicle of the complainant and made it fully functional and since then, the car is working properly and the complainant had taken 60% share of the claim from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited- Insurance Company. All these facts have been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. As such, the complainant is guilty of concealment of facts. Moreover, these facts were not denied by the complainant. Further the car in question has been working in proper condition as the M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Ludhiana-authorized service centre of Maruti has fully repaired the car of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant has not mentioned these facts in his complaint. Moreover, when the car is working in proper way without any defect, as such it can not be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the car in question. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the car would not have been repaired properly. Further, had there been any manufacturing defect in the car in question, the insurance company would not have paid the claim to the complainant. Furthermore, M/s.Stan Autos Private Limited, Ludhiana have already stated that the fire in the vehicle  took place was due to non-standard fitment of accessories in the vehicle, from some unauthorized person i.e. alloy wheel, stereo, etc. which were the cause of incident i.e. fire.  No doubt, the complainant has filed an affidavit of one Sandeep Singh, Automobile Electrician Ex.C9 who deposed that he inspected the car in question on 8.1.2014  at the spot  after the occurrence and stated that  fire caught by the car while it was in stationery condition, as such, it was the result of manufacturing defect in the car. But in his cross examination, this witness has stated that he is not Electrical Engineer nor he had any Diploma or Certificate. He has passed upto +2 standards. Further this witness belied the whole story propounded by the complainant as this witness had deposed in his cross examination that he inspected the vehicle on 8.1.2014 at about 12 noon to 1.00 pm whereas the complainant in his complaint to the police Ex.C2 has stated that said vehicle was parked by Pawandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant at Ludhiana at about 5 PM on 8.1.2014 and went into the shop and when he came out after about 10-15 minutes, he found that fire took place in the car. So, this witness has been telling totally lie. Moreover, if the fire took place at about 5 PM on 8.1.2014 at Ludhiana, then this witness was informed at Amritsar and it took atleast 2 to 3 hours to reach Ludhiana. How it can be believed that he inspected the vehicle in question after reaching Ludhiana from Amritsar, at 12 Noon to 1.00 PM on 8.1.2014.  Moreover, this witness has admitted that he has not mentioned the nature of manufacturing defect in the car i.e. what was the manufacturing defect. Apart from this, the entire occurrence happened when the car was in possession of Pawandeep Singh, nephew of the complainant, but the complainant has not filed the affidavit of said Pawandeep Singh who could depose true facts as to how and way in which the fire took place in the car in question.
9. All this shows that the complaint filed by the complainant is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 26.10.2015.                                                  (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                      President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member