BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.165 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 13.04.2018

      Date of Decision: 06.12.2021

Sukhjit Singh s/o Surat Singh, resident of VPO Bhatnura Lubana, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Principal Officer, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

2.       Principal Officer, Lovely Autos, Head Office: Lovely Mall, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                           Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Deepak Moudgil, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Arun Gupta, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant purchased one Maruti Car Ertiga bearing Engine No.D13A5359338, Chassis No.MA3FLEB1S00432155, manufactured on 12/2006 from the OP No.2 duly manufactured by the OP No.1 on 20.12.2016. At the time of the purchase of said car, the OP No.2 assured the complainant that the car in question is in perfect condition and did not have any manufacturing defect. Believing the assurance of the OP No.2, the complainant purchased the car in question and later on registration No.PB-08-DN-5442 was allotted to the car in question. That the complainant used to ply the said car as per the instructions given by the OPs and in a sincere manner and got the first service done on 03.01.2017. The complainant was using the said car while observing all the safety measure. On dated 25.01.2017, the complainant had to attend marriage ceremony of his friend, then at about 09:00 AM, despite the best efforts by the complainant, the said car was not able to start and the complainant at once informed the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 told the complainant to bring the car for the purpose of repair at their service centre. But suddenly the car started and the complainant went to attend the marriage at Ajit Resorts, Bhogpur. At evening time, the complainant was about to leave the place, but the car did not start up and the complainant informed the OP No.2 and the car was towed to their service centre at Bhogpur. At that time, the complainant informed the OP No.2 that there might be some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The OP No.2 kept the car in service centre from 25.01.2017 to 05.02.2017, however the OP were not able to trace the actual defect in the car and the ECM of the car was changed. At that time, the OP No.2 assured the complainant that in future the complainant will not face any such problem, as the entire defective ECM system of the car was replaced. That the second service of the car was done within stipulated time. However, on 18.05.2017, the complainant again faced the same problem. The complainant was returning to his village from Jalandhar and at about 05:30 PM reached near Bhogpur. The engine of the car suddenly stop working and steering of the car became hard and the brakes of the car also jammed upon the road itself and the entire indicators of the meter started blinking. The complainant suffered a sudden shock due to sudden stopping a car. A fatal accident can happen if any vehicle was coming from behind at that time. The complainant at once went to Bhogpur Service Centre, where the authorities of the OP No.2 informed that some of the connections were loose and after due service the car was given to the complainant.
That on dated 31.05.2017, the complainant was going towards Jalandhar and at about 12:00, the car suddenly again stopped at Kala Bakra on G. T. Road and the steering of the car became hard. The OP No.2 was informed and the car was again repaired at Jalandhar. The complainant repeatedly proclaimed the OP No.2 during all this time that there is some manufacturing defect in car, but the OP No.2 was not able to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and kept upon giving false assurances to the complainant that the car is in perfect condition and did not having any manufacturing defect. That the complainant again suffered the above mentioned problem on 25.07.2017 and the OP No.2 kept the car at their service centre from 25.07.2017 to 29.07.2017 and some of the wiring system of the car was changed, even at that time the complainant requested to the OP No.2 to change the said car and to handover new car to the complainant as the car in question is having manufacturing defect. Despite repeated requests of the complainant, the OP No.2 was not able to tell the actual defect of the car. Even the technical expert of the OP No.2 was not able to explain the actual defect in the car. That again on 06.10.2017, the complainant faced similar problem in the car and the car remained with the service centre of the OP No.2 from 06.10.2017 to 09.11.2017 and the experts from the office of the OP No.1 were also called and the entire wiring system of the car was changed and the car was delivered to the complainant on 09.11.2017.  The complainant requested the OP No.2 that the car in question is having manufacturing defect and requested the experts of the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 to inform about the actual defect in the car. But even during this period of time despite the presence of experts of the OPs No.1 and 2 were not able to tell the actual defect in the car. The complainant requested the OP to handover a new car instead of the car in question which is having manufacturing defect. But the OPs No.1 and 2 kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. On 14/15.01.2018, the complainant again faced similar problem in the car and even as now the car in question is in service centre of the OP No.2 and till date no satisfactory explanation is given to the complainant. As such, the OPs had played unfair trade practice against the complainant and the complainant is suffering at the hands of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  supply a new car in lieu of the defective car in question and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed by the complainant with an ulterior motive to obtain undue gains from the OPs. Further, it is submitted that the OPs being the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles stands warranty for a period of 24 months or 40,000 kms whichever even occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The owner is responsible for any repair or replacements which are not covered by his warranty. It is further averred that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint without any material on record against the OPs. The present complaint is without any cause of action against the OPs. That the complainant has categorically failed to set out any case for compensation within the provisions of section 14(1) (d) of the Act. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has concealed material facts from this Commission. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the car by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.  

3.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed the evidence.

4.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                By way of this complaint, the complainant has sought the relief of directing the OPs to supply a new car in lieu of the car which was defective and to grant him the damages and litigation expenses. It has been alleged by the complainant that he purchased the car on 20.12.2016. The first service was done on 03.01.2017, but thereafter the car could not be started due to the defect. The same was sent for repair to the service center number of times, but when the defect could not be rectified, the car was sent to the service centre of the OPs and the same is still in their possession. He has produced on record Ex.C-2, the RC of the vehicle in the name of the complainant Sukhjit Singh. The name of the car is Ertiga and the same was purchased for Rs.7,69,340/-. Ex.C-7 shows the free service and in the column of ‘Demanded Repairs’, it is mentioned that ‘Engine Not Starting’. In Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 also the ‘Demanded Repairs’ has been mentioned as ‘Engine Not Starting’ and ‘Tyre Rotation’. Similarly, in Ex.C10 the ‘Demanded Repair’ is ‘Rear Right Door-Replacement’. In Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13 ‘Demanded Repairs’ is mentioned ‘Steering Hard’ and ‘Engine Not Starting’. As per Ex.C-14 the ‘Demanded Repairs’ was mentioned as ‘vehicle pulling to one Side, vehicle wobbling, engine not starting and similarly, in Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17, it has been mentioned as engine not working. All these documents are of the period of 27.01.2017, 08.05.2017, 05.02.2017, 18.05.2017, 09.05.2017, 25.07.2017, 31.05.2017, 09.11.2017, 29.07.2017, 20.12.2016 and 28.02.2018. All these documents show that within a span of one year the car was sent to the service station for number of times and the defect was not removed completely.

7.                As per submission of the Ld. Counsel for the OPs, the vehicle was always attended by the OPs with great care and no condition of the warranty was ever violated. The necessary repairs were carried on by the OPs as and when the complainant asked for the same. He has further submitted that the complainant was provided another car as the complainant did not opt to take the car in question from the OPs. After repair the request was made to the complainant number of times to take his car back, but the complainant refused to do so. His submission is that the complainant plied the car given by the OPs for all these years and has not returned as yet the car of OPs which was being used by the complainant. He has been enjoying the benefit of the vehicle. In the vehicle purchase by the complainant there is no manufacturing defect.

8.                It is not disputed that the vehicle was sent number of times to the service station for service. The complainant has also used the vehicle given by the OPs. The defect came in the vehicle within warranty period. It is also not disputed that the vehicle is still lying with the OPs and OPs vehicle is lying with the complainant. Both the complainant and the OPs have kept/used the vehicle of each other for all these years i.e. from 2017 onwards till today. Though the vehicle of OPs was being used by the complainant, but the fact remains that the defect in the vehicle could not be rectified. Thus, in such circumstances, there is deficiency in service by the OPs and the OPs are directed to return the car of the complainant make Maruti Car Ertiga bearing Engine No.D13A5359338, Chassis No.MA3FLEB1S00432155, which must be in working condition to the satisfaction of the complainant and similarly the complainant shall return the car given to him for usage purpose. Since the complainant has suffered mental torture and agony, therefore the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

06.12.2021         Member                          Member           President