DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALWAL.
Consumer Complaint No.67 of 2014
Date of Institution: 4.6.2014
Date of decision: 23.2.2015
Rajbir s/o Shri Charan Singh resident of village Teekri Brahman, Tehsil and Dist rict Palwal.
Complainant
Versus
- The Manager of Rohan Motor’s Limited, 3695/31/14, Mathura Road, Sawal Vihar, Main Palwal City, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal.
- M.C. of Maneshwar Plant Maruti Suzuki India, Limited, Plot No.1, Phase-3A, IMT Maneshar , District Gurgaon.
OPPOSITE PARTY.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: JAGBIR SINGH : PRESIDENT
KHUSHWINDER KAUR: MEMBER
R.S. DHARIWAL : MEMBER
PRESENT: Sh. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Rajeev Sharma,Advocate for opposite party no.2.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Swift VDI Car on 22.11.2011 from OP No.1, an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited i.e. OP No.2 by making the payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- for the new vehicle to OP No.1.
The complainant noticed the problem of rusting in the body of the said car just after 5-6 months of its purchase and intimated the officials on
-2-
record service of the vehicle who took notice of the problem and assured him not to worry as the vehicle in question would be changed and asked him to visit again. The complainant regularly paid the visits and intimated to OP No.1 that vehicle is decaying and deteriorating continuously due to rusting and made a written complaint also on 26.9.2013 to OP No.1.
On 15.10.2013 the complainant was called by OP No.1 to bring his car and OP No.1 prepared the job slip and mentioned the reason of tbe problem i.e. rusting and again assured him to change the car in question. But now OP No.1 has slipped on his tongue and assurance which was given by OP No.1 and showed its true colour. OP No.1 have made fool of the complainant and hood-winked by selling the car which was manufactured by using impure metal.
Now O.Ps refused to exchange the car which was in guarantee period. Legal notices were also served to them on 28.11.2013 and 9.4.2014 through his counsel but of no avail. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint after suffering mental tension, agony and harassment with the prayer to give direction to the O.Ps to pay the cost of the car i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- or exchange the above said car with a new one. Further be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation as well as Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses with interest @ 18% p.a.
Upon registering the complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to O.Ps. O.P. No. 1 did not appear before this Forum despite service of the notice and as such was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.7.14.
OP NO.2 appeared and filed its written statement before this Forum by taking several preliminary objections such as the complaint is without any cause of action against OP No.2, the liability of the OP No.2 being manufacturer is of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per
-3-
clause-3 of the Warranty Policy and OP No.2 has no role to play in providing any service to the complainant. But even then same were provided by OP No.2. As such OP No.2 has not rendered any deficient service.
OP No.2 submitted that the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki range of vehicle under the technical supervision of Suzuki Motor Corporation, Japan and has been using an ultra-technique, equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of the vehicle which passes through various stages in paint process and undergone all the checks before getting FCOK (Final Check OK) by OP No.2 before dispatching it to the OP No.2. At the time of delivery the dealer also carry out final PDI (Pre-Delivery Inspection) of all vehicles.
Moreover , the rusting and corrosion depends on several external factors and environment conditions such as accumulation of road salt, dirt, moisture, chipping, scratches and high humidity etc.
OP No.2 submitted that the complainant himself has been using hard water or detergent etc. for washing the car which might have led to the problem of rusting. The complainant reported the problem for the first time at a mileage cover of 45000 km when the warranty had already expired. No such complaint was reported at the time of first three services and it is also denied that any assurance to exchange the car was ever given to the complainant as alleged and the complainant has tried to mislead the court by giving a false story.
In support of his claim the complainant placed on record his own supporting affidavit Ex. CW1/A wherein he solemnly affirmed the same facts which he enumerated in his complaint and replied upon the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.
On the other hand, Sh.Sarang Bansal S/o Sh. B.B.Bansal , Aged 23 years, working for gains for Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. placed on record his own
-4-
supporting affidavit Ex.RW1/A wherein he affirmed and declared the same facts which are mentioned in the reply of opposite party no.2 and relied upon the documents Ex.R2/A & R2/B.
We have heard Sh.Jitesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Sh. Rajeev Sharma Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 at length and have gone through the case file carefully as well as written arguments.
Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.11.2011 from opposite party no.1. The complainant had made various complaints regarding the problem of rusting of the vehicle in question to the opposite party no.1 and it is evident from Ex.C2,Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5.
Even Ex.R2/B also proves the case of the complainant that the anti rust coating was demanded in repairs of the vehicle in question by the complainant and it was done by opposite party no.1 at the expenses of the complainant at the mileage of 1425 KM on 16.12.2011 at the time of first free service and under body coating was also done by opposite party no.1 at the expenses of the complainant.
Affidavit submitted by opposite party no. 2 in its evidence cannot be taken into consideration being unattested.
As far as the opposite party no. 1 is concerned it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.7.2014 and there is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the version of the complainant. Since opposite party no. 1 has not come present to defend the complainant claim and claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint against opposite party no.1 go unrebutted.
In the present scenario it is amply proved that the opposite party no. 1 is negligent and has rendered deficient services to the complainant. As such the complaint is allowed and opposite party no. 1 is directed to replace all the rusted parts of the body of the car free of costs alongwith Rs.15,000/- as compensation
-5-
for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.2100/- as litigation expenses within clear 60 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 1 would be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as penalty in addition to the above ordered amount. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room. This order of the Forum is running into 5 pages and each page of this order have been signed by this Forum.
Announced on:23.02.2015 (JAGBIR SINGH)
President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(KHUSHWINDER KAUR)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
(R.S. DHARIWAL)
Member
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal.
