Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/523/2014

Sahil Bhalla - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Yadav & Vipin Gupta

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/523/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	06/08/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	06/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Sahil Bhalla son of Sh. Anil Bhalla, resident of House No.474, Sector-2, Panchkula, Haryana – 134109.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Managing Director/ Chairman, having its Registered Office at Plot No.1, Phase-III-A, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

[2]  M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Regional Service Manager, having its Regional Office at SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

[3]  M/s C.M. Auto Sales (P) Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Office at Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Munish Yadav, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Amit Bhanot, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased a brand new Maruti Suzuki Swift Desire VDI car from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.6,50,813/- vide invoice dated 13.6.2014 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter the Complainant got the aforesaid vehicle insured from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. by paying a premium of Rs.22,023/- (Annexure C-3). The Complainant also spent Rs.40,065/- on getting the aforesaid vehicle registered with the Registration Authority Panchkula vide Regn. No.HR 34F 0002 (Annexure C-4 & C-6). It has been alleged that on 10.7.2014, while the Complainant took his vehicle for its first free service after completion of 1200 Kms. at the authorized workshop of Maruti Suzuki namely, M/s Care Taker, Indl. Area Phase-2, Panchkula, it was revealed that the left side of vehicle in question including half portion of the roof, bonnet and boot had been repainted. Thereafter, the Complainant took the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party No.3, where its employees also confirmed the said fact. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties a number of times with a request to replace the vehicle as it was sold by them fully knowing that the vehicle was damaged at the time of its delivery, but they flatly refused to replace the same. Even, the Complainant made a Complaint to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh against the Opposite Party No.3 on 21.7.2014 (Annexure C-8), but to no avail. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement have pleaded that the Opposite Party No.3 had entered into the transaction of sale with the Complainant independently, to which the answering Opposite Parties were not privy. Moreover, the relationship between the answering Opposite Parties and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between them (Annexure R-2/1). It has been asserted that the answering Opposite Parties invoiced the vehicle in question to the Opposite Party No.3 in perfect conditions after declaring FCOK (Final Check OK). The grievance of the Complainant pertains to sale of vehicle in which the answering Opposite Parties have no role to play. The liability of the answering Opposite Parties is limited upto providing the three free services. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its written reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant inspected the vehicle thoroughly before making the payment and only after his satisfaction the vehicle was handed over to him. It has been asserted that the Complainant had got the vehicle registered in his name and after one month of its usage had gone for its first service to one M/s Care Taker at Panchkula on 10.07.2014, who is neither a party in the present Complaint and nor the document Annexure C-7 shows any deficiency on the part of the answering Opposite Party. The entire story of the Complainant is on whimsical grounds and has no relevancy with the answering Opposite Party. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have been controverted.

 

6.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care and circumspection, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.  

 

8.     The sole grouse of the Complainant is that he has been sold one accidental damaged repaired car as a brand new one.

 

9.     The stand taken by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 is that they handed over the brand new car to Opposite Party No.3 in perfect condition after final check only and their liability is limited upto three free services.

 

10.     It has been pleaded by Opposite Party No.3 that Complainant was handed over the vehicle in question after his full satisfaction. Therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed in the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the allegations of the Complainant. 

 

11.     We have scrutinized the entire record available on the file. It is clear from Annexure C-7 that the vehicle in question was certainly taken to M/s Care Taker (Maruti Authorized Dealer Workshop) on 10.7.2014 for first free service of the vehicle. But the said M/s Care Taker is neither a party in the present Complaint nor document Annexure C-7 points out its declaration in respect of the vehicle being accidental/ damaged one. Even no affidavit of any of the Engineers of the said M/s Care Taker has been placed on record by the Complainant to substantiate his case.  Moreover, as per Annexure R-1 also, the fact of some sort of accident with the vehicle in question and therefore painting has been pointed out, but it nowhere indicates that the defect as alleged by the Complainant was before the purchase of the brand new vehicle. Therefore, the allegations of the Complainant regarding the sale of a defective/ damaged car to him, in the absence of any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence with regard to the same, do not hold any water.  

 

12.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint merits dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

13.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th August, 2015                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER