Haryana

Sonipat

47/2014

AZAD SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PASCO AUTO MOB. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.47 of 2014.                                             Instituted on:13.02.2014.

                                Date of order:22.08.2016

 

Azad Singh Panwar son of Sukhpal Singh Panwar, resident of H.No.E-3, University Campus, DCRUST Murthal, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.M/s Pasco Automobiles, Pasco House No.6, Industrial Estate, Old Delhi-Gurgaon road, Gurgaon-122015, through its Manager.

2.M/s Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Delhi road Sonepat through its Manager.

3.M/s Murthal Auto (P) Ltd. Plot no.44, HSIIDC, Murthal, distt. Sonepat through its Manager.

 

(RESPONDENT No.3 GIVEN UP ON 18.11.2015 BY THE COMPLAINANT’S COUNSEL)

 

4.M/s Maruti Sales and service, C-119, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi-28, through its Manager.

5.M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Head office, 1 Nelson Mandela road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70, through its General Manger(Sales).

 

                                                     …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Mannu Malik     Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Sanjay Kankarwal, Advocate for respondent no.1 & 2.

           Respondent no.3 given-up on 18.11.2015.

           Sh. Kuldeep Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent no.4 & 5.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one  new Ritz LDI Diesel  from respondent on.1 for Rs.5,11,000/- vide bill no.31197 dated 4.10.2011. However, the respondent no.1 has issued the bill for Rs.497135/-.  The respondent no.4 vide certificate dated 20.9.20-13 has extended the warranty upto 3.10.2015 or 80000 kms.   After some time, the complainant observed certain noise in the car and on 15.7.2012, he took the car to respondent no.3 and they checked the vehicle and found very less quantity of engine oil and then they changed full engine oil and charged Rs.3521/- from the complainant. The vehicle has created problem only when it has run 6074 kms.  Thereafter also the said vehicle has created problems for the complainant from time to time.  The complainant has approached the respondents for removal of the defects, but of no use and has also requested the respondents for the replacement of the defective vehicle with new one. The said vehicle has been got repaired from respondent no.3 and 4 many times but of no use as the defects were not removed due to manufacturing defect.  The respondents have sold the defective vehicle to the complainant.  Thus, finding no way out, the complainant has made a complaint before the National Commission vide no.493444 on 30.9.2013 telephonically.  The respondent no.5 deprived off the rights of complainant to drive and use the new virgin car by selling a manufacturing defective piece of car and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 & 2 and 4 & 5 have appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their written statement separately.

          The respondent no.1 and 2 in their written statement has submitted that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, then the manufacturer company Maruti Suzuki is liable for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1 and 2.

          The respondent no.4 and 5 in their written statement has submitted that the liability of the respondent no.4 and 5  being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause 3 of the warranty policy. The car given to the complainant was brand new and defect free.  The complainant took the delivery of the car after satisfying himself.  On 15.7.2012 the complainant reported the problem of high engine oil consumption and turbo noise.  The oil filter was replaced and the vehicle was put under observation for the noise problem. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as is pleaded by the complainant.  The engine of the car was inspected and was found to be with good parameters.   The complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of his assumption that there is some noise in the engine.  The engine is a machine and is bound to give some sound/noise while in running condition.   There was on abnormal noise in the vehicle and the vehicle was found in OK and good working condition.  The complainant is insisting for the replacement of his old car with new one which cannot be allowed as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The vehicle is in good running condition.  The complainant is, thus, not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents have supplied/sold the defective car to the complainant.  The defects of the car are not repairable due to manufacturing defects.  Thus, the respondents are liable to replace the defective car with new one.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 have submitte that if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, then the manufacturer company Maruti Suzuki is liable for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 and 5 has submitted that the liability of the respondent no.4 and 5  being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause 3 of the warranty policy. The car given to the complainant was brand new and defect free.  The complainant took the delivery of the car after satisfying himself.  On 15.7.2012 the complainant reported the problem of high engine oil consumption and turbo noise.  The oil filter was replaced and the vehicle was put under observation for the noise problem. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as is pleaded by the complainant.  The engine of the car was inspected and was found to be with good parameters.   The complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of his assumption that there is some noise in the engine.  The engine is a machine and is bound to give some sound/noise while in running condition.   There was on abnormal noise in the vehicle and the vehicle was found in OK and good working condition.  The complainant is insisting for the replacement of his old car with new one which cannot be allowed as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The vehicle is in good running condition.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief or not and if so, from whom?

          We have perused the coloured photographs of vehicle no.HR10S-1139 placed on record by the complainant.

          We have also perused the vehicle history of the above said vehicle very carefully.

          The complainant paid his visits frequently to the respondents, detail of which is as under:-

          Ist visit on 7.11.2011 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 905 KM.

          IInd visit on 8.4.2012 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 4100 KM.

          IIIrd visit on 8.6.2012 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 4989 KM.

          IVth visit on 15.7.2012 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 6074 KM.

          Vth visit on 3.10.2012 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 7555 KM.

          VIth visit on 28.10.2012 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 8182 KM.

          VIIth visit on 3.1.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 9492 KM.

          VIIIth visit on 11.1.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 9633 KM.

          IXth visit on 29.1.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 9972 KM and it is mentioned in this job card “Engine compression cylinder 1-16 kg, 2-16kg, 3-15.5kg, 4-16kg, oil level found OK 2.9 ltrs.

          Xth visit on 29.03.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 11442 KM.

          XIth visit on 12.4.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 11681 KM.

          XIIth visit on 23.4.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 11916 KM. It is also mentioned in this job card that “a/c compressor replace from float stock u/w.

          XIIIth visit on 7.6.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 12500 KM.

          XIVth visit on 11.6.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 12665 KM.

          XVth visit on 12.7.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 15398 KM.

          XVIth visit on 20.9.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 16173 KM.

          XVIIth visit on 11.10.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 16478 KM.

          XVIIIth visit on 17.10.2013 and at that time, mileage of the vehicle was 16786 KM.       

          As per the complainant, he has purchased the new vehicle on 4.10.2011 and upto 17.10.2013 he has to pay frequent visits with the car in question to the respondents for as many as 18 times for removal of the defects of the new car.

          Even the photographs placed on record by the complainants shows that the engine of the car was also removed by the respondents for the removal of the defects.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has sought the relief to direct the respondents to replace the existing defective car with new one.  But this prayer of the complainant is not acceptable because the replacement of any product can only be made when it is proved that the defects developed are not in a repairable condition.  In the present case, the complainant no doubt has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.3 to 5, but it is no where proved that the defects of the vehicle are not in a repairable condition.  In our view,  since the complainant could not enjoy his car and he has to pay frequent visits to the respondents i.e. for as many as 18 times w.e.f. 4.10.2011 to 17.10.2013, definitely the complainant is entitled to get some suitable compensation from the respondents no.3 to 5.  The complainant has claimed Rs.3 lacs on account of harassment, humiliation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if directions are given to the respondents no. 3 to 5 to pay Rs.one lac in lumpsum to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no. 3 to 5 to pay Rs.one lac in lumpsum to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. 

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.3 to 5.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:22.08.2016