FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Alto 800 car on exchange of a Maruti Zen Estillo LXI car from OP2/Sanei Motors Pvt. Ltd. by paying Rs.3,69,422/-. Soon after purchase the vehicle engine was not working properly. The matter was reported to the OPs in writing. Despite repair the vehicle was not road worthy condition. Being aggrieved, complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint seeking reliefs fully mentioned in the prayer portion of the complaint.

The complaint is resisted by the OP1 by filing Written Version stating inter-alia that complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of vehicle nor paid any consideration amount to the answering OP. Complainant purchased the vehicle on 21.06.2016 and lodged complaint to MSIL on 15.07.2018. Thus, the allegation that soon after purchase the subject vehicle engine was not working properly is not true and correct. The answering OP being the manufacturer gives warranty to all its new vehicles for a period of 24 months or 40,000 Kms whichever event occurs first from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The said warranty terms are binding upon both parties. The warranty is the only obligation of the answering OP as per Clause-3 of warranty policy. The answering OP had complied with its obligation under warranty. There is no negligence at all on the part of the answering OP and the consumer complaint is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the answering OP has requested to dismiss the complaint.

The OP2 raised preliminary objections that the complainant filed a false complaint and suppressed the true and correct facts. The specific care of the OP2 is that the complainant had purchased one Maruti Alto 800 LXI Model car from the answering OP on exchange scheme against Delivery Challan No. DLN 16000428 dated 08.07.2016, complainant send the subject vehicle to their workshop on account of some problem and the vehicle delivered to the complainant after make it road worthy. Engine of the subject vehicle was changed as per guideline of the manufacturer and also applied to the A.R.T.O., PVD, Salt Lake for reissue of smart card. Despite regular persuasions the concern department of Motor Vehicles did not reissue smart card. There is no deficient in rendering services to the complainant on the part of the answering OP. Thus, the OP2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Parties adduced their evidences. The Learned Advocate from both sides argued the matter at length. They have reiterated their pleadings and affidavits of evidence. They have filed their brief notes of written arguments and relevant documents and e-mails on the subject vehicle. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Learned Advocate for the parties and have also examined the record.

Fact remains that complainant had purchased Maruti Alto 800 LXI model car from OP2 Sanei Motors Private Ltd. being dealer of OP1 M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on exchange scheme against payment of Rs. 3,69,422/- under Delivery Challan No. DLN 16000428 dated 08.07.2016. It is also admitted fact that the subject vehicle was registered from R.T.O. Complainant noticed that there is defect in Engine with noise sound, doors & horn of the subject vehicle bearing registration No. WB-06 N 0137. The matter was reported to the Ops and Engine of the subject vehicle was replaced as per guideline of the OP1/manufacture. The subject vehicle was delivered to the complainant after make it road worthy.

The grievance of the complainant is that despite repair the vehicle is not road worthy condition. On the contrary, the OP2/dealer of OP1 M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. denied the allegation of the complainant. Their specific defence is that they resolved the problem of the subject car but the intention of the complainant is only to get refund of the price of the subject vehicle. Complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence of any expert to prove that defective Maruti Alto 800 LXI car was sold to him instead of defect free new car. Even the complainant did not file any appropriate application for examination of the subject vehicle by any expert. The Hon’ble NCDRC in a decision reported in 2017((3) CPR held that manufacturing defect must be proved by expert opinion. In the absence of any expert report it cannot be said that old car was sold to the complainant instead of new.

It is not disputed that subject vehicle had taken to workshop for change of Engine and OP2 replaced the old Engine. OP2 also applied for reissue of smart card with changed Engine No.5681192. The new smart card is delivered to the complainant after 16 months from the date of redelivery of the repaired vehicle. Complainant has been suffering mental agony on account of non changing of vehicle identification plate. Which is vital identification inside the engine chamber. As a result, complainant is unable to sell his vehicle to any third party due to discrepancy of Engine Number. The OP2/Dealer has role to provide registration certificate to the complainant. Thus, the OP2 is negligent to perform their duties.

The relationship between the OP1 and OP2 is principal basis as per the dealership agreement which was executed between the OP1/Manufacture and OP2/authorized dealer. As per terms & conditions specified in the dealership agreement OP2/authorized Dealer can in no way to be considered as agent and/or representative of OP1/Manufacture.

Based on the above discussion we deem it appropriate to partly allow the complaint and direct the OP2/Authorized Dealer to change the vehicle identification plate, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from today.

Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties as per rules.