D.O.F:20/09/2017
D.O.O:10/05/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.182/2017
Dated this, the 10th day of May 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Muhammedkunju Seedi kunju
@ S.K Muhammed,
S/o Seedikunju
“NEW WHITE HOUSE” : Complainant
Kattakkal, Kalanad (P.O)
Kasaragod Taluk & District
(Adv: Shafi.M)
And
1. M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd,
Palam Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon – 122015,
Rep: by its Executive Director (Service)
2. M/S Popular Vehicles & Services Pvt Ltd,
Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam, Kochi,
Kerala State
Rep: by its Manager.(Adv: Lal. K Joseph, Luxy. T.A & P. Muraleedharan) : Opposite Parties
3. M/S INDUS Motor Co. Pvt. Ltd,
NH – 17, Mavungal,
Anandasramam (PO),
Kanhangad, Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod District – 671521
Rep: by its Manager.
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a 2015 model MARUTHI BALENO car ( Reg. No. KL 14 S 518) from the Opposite Party No.2 on 17.11.2015 , for a total amount of Rs.8,84,912/-as on road price . The Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer of the car. The Opposite Party No.3 is running authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.1. After a few days of taking of delivery of the Vehicle, the complainant noticed an abnormal noise from the area of gear transmission system. Though the same was immediately brought to the noise of the Opposite Party No.3, they have not seriously considered the complaint. Even during the 1st and 2nd service, the technicians of Opposite Party No.3 did not seriously attended. When the notice from the gear box developed abnormally, the complainant was forced to hand over the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.3 on 22.07.2016 for necessary repairs.
After a detailed inspection, it was confirmed that the gear box transmission system was defective and they repaired the vehicle by replacing the gear transmission assembly and gave delivery of the vehicle after 23 days. After a few months at mileage of 11,000 kms, the vehicle again started developing the same type of abnormal noise from the gear box and the complainant took the vehicle to the work shop of Opposite Party No.3 on 04.08.2017 and after preliminary inspection, they told the complainant that they want to consult with the management at their Head quarters and further told that they would inform the complainant shortly and the vehicle was taken back by the complainant. Thereafter on 17.08.2017, they contacted complainant and requested him to bring the vehicle and accordingly the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 and since then the vehicle is kept there in the workshop of the Opposite Party No.3.
The vehicle sold by the Opposite Parties is having some inherent manufacturial defects and due to that the complainant could not use the vehicle smoothly. The Opposite Parties are liable to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the price paid by the complainant with interest.
The act of the Opposite Parties by supply of a vehicle with manufactural defects amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss . Even though the complainant raised the complaint at the first instance, the service technicians of Opposite Party No.3 did not seriously attend and that also caused great mental agony to the complainant.
Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the vehicle or to pay back the amount of Rs.8,84,912/-the price amount with interest, and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost. The notice issued to the OPs are served and OPNo.1 to 3 entered appearance through their respective counsels , who filed separate written Versions.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1, the averments in the complaint are misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The vehicle in question is defect free and in perfect ok road worthy condition. The complainant was provided with warranty services as per terms and conditions. The complainant has concealed the factum of the car in question, having been repaired to his satisfaction .The complaint of the transmission system was rectified by replacing under warranty, with a modified transmission LH, along with clutch assy. As per the warranty clause the Opposite Party is only liable to replace the defective parts alone.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. No.1 .The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No. 2, the contents of the complaint are wrong, incorrect, and frivolous and emphatically denied. The Opposite Party No.2 admit that they have sold the vehicle to the complainant .They sold a defect free vehicle. The contention that the vehicle had manufacturing defects and that the Opposite Party No.2 has offered deficient service etc. are incorrect and hence denied.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No. 3, the complaint is false, frivolous ,vexatious and not maintainable in law. The Opposite Party No. 3 submit that the complainant entrusted the vehicle with them for free service. The problem of the gear transmission system was cured by replacing with new one. The contentions that the service technicians of Opposite Party No.3 did not seriously attend and that also caused great mental agony to the complainant is false and hence denied. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
An expert commission was appointed in this case as per the l A No. 71/2018 filed by the complainant. The Commissioner, Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty, who is a professional loss assessment surveyor of motor vehicles, filed his report after inspection.
The Complainant filed the proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and produced documents which are marked as Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 16. and Ext. C - 1 . The Ext - A1 is the copy of the RC, Ext. A 2 is the Job card dated 22.07.2016, , Ext 'A3 is the copy of Regd. letter dated 10-09-2016, Ext A4 and 5 are the Postal acknowledgement cards , Ext - A 6 is the e -mail communication dated 18.08.2016. Ext - A6 is the e -mail communication dated 18.08.2016. Ext. A 7 is the Job card dated 04.08.2017, Ext. A8 is the Job card dated 17.08.2017 Ext - A 9 is the e -mail communication dated 12.08.2016. Ext - A 10 is the e -mail communication dated 13.08.2016. Ext - A11 is the e -mail communication dated 16.08.2016, Ext - A12 is the e -mail communication dated 16.08.2016. Ext.A12 (a) is the reply e-mail communication dated 17.08.2016.,
Ext - A 13 is the e -mail communication dated 11.08.2016. Ext - A14 is the e -mail communication dated 22.08.2016. Ext - A15 is the e -mail communication dated 12.09.2016. Ext. A 16 is the invoice dated 23 09 2016 issued by the opposite party. The Ext. C 1 is the commission Report. The complainant was Cross -examined as PW - 1. The expert commissioner Mr. Praveen Chandra Shetty also examined as PW- 2, from the side of the complainant. From the side of the Opposite Parties, The Service manager of Opposite Party No.1 Mr. Shivakumar is examined as DW -1 and also marked 2 documents as Ext.B1 and B2. The Ext. B1 is the copy of the Warranty Policy , Ext. B2 is the copy of Dealership agreement . The expert Commissioner's report dated 24.07.2017 is marked as Ext. C- 1.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the vehicle sold by the Opposite Parties is having some inherent manufacturial defects and due to that the complainant could not use the vehicle smoothly. The Opposite Parties are liable to replace the vehicle with a new one or refund the price paid by the complainant with interest. The complaint of the Vehicle is that the complaint of the abnormal noise from the area of gear transmission system. The same was attended by the technician of Opposite Parties and repaired by replacing the gear transmission system with a new one. But even after the repair the Vehicle again started to produce the same noise.
The act of the Opposite Parties by supply of a vehicle with manufactural defects amounts to unfair trade practice and service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered great mental agony and monetary loss. Even though the complainant raised the complaint at the first instance, the service technicians of Opposite Party No.3 did not seriously attended and that also caused great mental agony to the complainant
The Opposite Parties argue the complaint of the transmission system was rectified by replacing under warranty, with a modified transmission LH, along with clutch assy. As per the warranty clause the Opposite Party is only liable to replace the defective parts alone.
They sold a defect free vehicle. The contention that the vehicle has manufacturing defects and that the Opposite Parties has offered deficient service etc. are incorrect and hence denied.
The problem of the gear transmission system was cured by replacing with new one. The contentions that the service technicians Opposite Parties did not seriously attended and that also caused great mental agony to the complainant is false and hence denied. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant argues that the defect of the vehicle could not be cured even after the replacement of the gear transmission system. The defect is not curable as it is due to some inherent manufacturing defects and therefore the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the Vehicle with new one or refund entire price amount with up to date interest .The Opposite Parties deny the argument that the Vehicle has inherent manufacturing defects.
As per the report, among other things, it is stated that, an extensive road trial of the subject vehicle has been done and noted the following points:
1. An abnormal sound and erratic vibration is felt between the speed of 30-40 kmph .The said erratic vibration disappeared between speed little above 40kmph. An abnormal sound and erratic vibration again surfaced after crossing a speed of little above 50 kmph, that remained till the crossing speed of little above 60 kmph. The same type of erratic vibration again reappeared between the speed of 80-90 kmph.
2. Grinding noise audible as coming out from front LH wheel without any clarity from where it was being generated, whether from knuckle LH, drive shaft Lh or from any rotating components between gear box and engine fly wheel.
3. While going through the previous repair history of the subject car, it was found the entire Gear box Assembly was replaced by new one in the first futile attempt in solving the defect. Later, a redesigned LH half transmission case was also installed on already replace Gerar box Assembly that too did not solve the complaint that existed in the car.
4. The subject vehicle is driven on tar and concrete in all speeds mentioned above and between 30 kmph to 50 kmph on mud road (due to restriction/ safety). The above abnormal erratic vibration is felt and grinding noise is heard in all types of roads. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the existing defect observed in the subject vehicle at the time of my inspection falls under the definition of”inherent manufacturing defect.”
Even though the Opposite Parties filed objections to the expert commission report Ext. C1, they could not disprove the contents of the Ext. C1 by leading reliable evidence. Even though the Expert Commissioner PW - 2 was cross examined, in length, nothing could be elicited to discredit his evidence.
The documents Ext. A2 to 15, the job cards, Regd. Notices, e-mail communications (to and fro) detail the complaints of the Vehicle and the repairing works done by the Opposite Parties so as to cure the defects. The Ext. A15 is the e -mail communication dated 12-09-2017, sent by the Regional Manager (service) of the Opposite Parties, in which it is stated that the works on the Vehicle had been completed and the complainant was requested to take delivery as early as possible by retuning back the replacement vehicle provided from the w/s.
But the document Ext C1 wouId show that the expert commissioner had inspected the Vehicle in presence of the complainant and the opposite parties and found that the defect was still persisting.
So considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that the subject vehicle has some”inherent manufacturing defect and there is negligence and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties, as they did not come forward to replace the Vehicle even though the complainant intimated and approached them at the first instance itself.
Admittedly there is 2 years of warranty for the newly purchased vehicle and the defect was reported within the warranty period.
The complainant states in his chief affidavit that when the vehicle again started developing the same type of abnormal noise from the gear box he took the vehicle to the work shop of Opposite Party No.3 on 04.08.2017 and after preliminary inspection, they told the complainant that they want to consult with the management at their Head quarters and further told that they would inform the complainant shortly and the vehicle was taken back by the complainant. Thereafter on 17.08.2017, they contacted complainant and requested him to bring the vehicle and accordingly the complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of Opposite Party No.3 and since then the vehicle is kept there in the workshop of the Opposite Party No.3.
This fact is not disputed by the Opposite Parties. It means that the Vehicle is not in the use of the complainant since 17.08.2017.
The complainant states that he purchased a 2015 model MARUTHI BALENO car from the Opposite Party. No.2 on 17.11.2015, for a total amount of Rs.8,84,912/- as on road price. Even though he did not produced any bill or invoice or receipt for that it can be accepted in the absence of any rebuttal claim or evidence. So it can be held that the price of the Vehicle paid by the complainant on 17.11.2015 was Rs.8,84,912/-.
Now it has come to Iight that the complainant could not use the Vehicle purchased by spending Rs. 8,84,912/- comfortably , due to its inherent manufacturing defects.
It is needless to say that a vehicle which creates abnormal sound and irritable vibration while driving is not suit for comfortable journey.
Therefore the complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle of same brand or the refund of the entire price amount of Rs. 8,84,912/-
paid.
The complainant states that he suffered great mental agony and hardships due to the negligence and service deficiency of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that. The complainant estimates his loss and damage to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. But there is no reliable evidence for that . This commission is of the view that Rs. 50,000/- would be a reasonable amount of compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace of the vehicle MARUTHI BALENO (Reg: No. KL- 14 S 518) with a new vehicle of same brand or the refund of the entire price amount of Rs. 8,84,912/- paid and to pay Rs 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards costs to the complainant .
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C
A2- Job Card
A3- Copy of Registered letter
A4 & A5 - Postal acknowledgment cards
A6- E- mail communication Dt: 18/08/2016
A7- Job card Dt: 04/08/2017
A8- Job card Dt: 17/08/2017
A9 to A12- copy of E mail communication
A12 (a) – reply e mail communication
A13 to A15- Copy of E mail communication
A16- Invoice
B1- Warranty Policy
B2- Dealership agreement
C1- Commission report
Witness examined
Pw1- S.K.Muhammed Kunhi
Pw2- Praveen Chandra shetty
Dw1- P. Sivakumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
