Delhi

StateCommission

A/867/2014

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. DEEPAK SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 22.08.2017

 

First Appeal- 867/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the District Forum-VI, New Delhi in complaint case No. 629/2004)

 

        In the Matter of:

               

          Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

          (Formerly Maruti Udyog Ltd.)

          Having its registered Office at,

          Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road,

          Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070     

                                                                                       …. Appellant

Versus    1. Shri Deepak Singh, 115, First Floor, WA- 107, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092   2. Batra Auto Company, 14/1 Mile Stone, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana                                            …….Respondents

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, M-Block Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 629/2004 whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and litigation.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-1/complainant had purchased Maruti Esteem VXL, Petrol car manufactured by the appellant/OP-1 from respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. Batra Auto Company Ltd. on 26.06.2002 by paying a sum of Rs. 5,99,068/-. It was alleged by the respondent-1/complainant that from the first day of its purchase the vehicle had started giving problems including the noisy suspension sound which was very disconcerting and was not expected in a new car. The respondent-1/complainant had registered his first complaint about noisy suspension door and the music system within one week of the purchase of the said vehicle which was not acknowledged by respondent-2/OP-2. The said vehicle was taken for its first service on 17.09.2002 and it was pointed out by respondent-1/complainant that the said vehicle was emitting annoying noise from its shockers. In spite of being pointed out the respondent-2/OP-2 did not carry out the repairs and simply changed the engine oil and oil filter assembly. It was alleged that on 27.02.2003 the vehicle was taken for its second service to the workshop of respondent-2/OP-2 and the defects pointed out by respondent-1/complainant in the Job Card were that the shockers, breaks of the vehicle was noisy. It was also pointed out that the right front door was making disconcerting noise and the fuel gauge was not working. Respondent-2/OP-2 carried out repairs in respect of rear suspension and changed the rear suspension assembly, replaced the rear shocker etc. However, the suspension remained noisy and respondent-1/complainant again went to respondent-2/OP-2 on 07.06.2003 for the same complaint. Since the problem persisted, the respondent-1/complainant conveyed his dissatisfaction to respondent-2/OP-2 vide letter dt. 09.09.2003 with a copy to appellant/OP-1. In pursuance to the aforesaid letter, respondent-2/OP-2 asked respondent-1/complainant to bring the defective vehicle to workshop and meet customer case Manager in order to get the defect removed. On 24.09.2003 the vehicle was again taken to respondent-2/OP-2 who replaced the spring rear coil of the vehicle. Respondent-1/complainant was assured by the staff of the respondent-2/OP-2 that the shockers have been replaced and problem would be resolved. However, respondent-1/complainant found no change in the working of the suspension and they continued to be noisy. It was alleged that on raising queries, the staff of respondent-2/OP-2 had revealed that performance of the said vehicle could have been affected due to the fact that the vehicle had alloy rims which were fitted by manufacturer i.e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. themselves as accessories to the vehicle. It was alleged that respondent-1/complainant again expressed his dissatisfaction vide letter dated 01.10.2003. Thereafter, respondent-2/OP-2 vide its letter dt. 15.10.2003 had again requested respondent-1/complainant to bring the said vehicle to workshop so that the alleged problems could be attended to. However, the problems of noisy rear suspension could not be removed despite repeated visits and respondent-1/complainant stopped using the said car. On being aggrieved, the respondent-1/complainant filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum for replacement of the car.

3.             Notice was issued to OPs. Both the OPs had filed their separate written statement.

4.             Reply was filed by appellant/OP-1 wherein it was denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the said car or appellant/OP-1, respondent-2/OP-2 rendered deficient service. It was alleged that the vehicle manufactured by appellant/OP-1undergo stringent quality control test before dispatch to dealers. It was alleged that the dealer including respondent-2/OP-2 also carry pre-delivery inspection. It was alleged that the respondents/OPs duly discharged their objections as agreed under warranty and respondent-2/OP-2 had provided all three free services as per the terms and conditions. It was alleged that respondent-1/complainant was not liable for any repair or replacement not covered under warranty.

5.             Reply was also filed by respondent-2/OP-2 wherein it was alleged that the complaint was without any cause of action and was liable to be dismissed. It was alleged that respondent-2/OP-2 had duly discharged its obligation under the warranty as per agreed terms and provided all the three free services and had replaced certain parts to complete satisfaction of respondent-1/complainant during the period of warranty. It was alleged that before delivery, the respondent-2/OP-2 had conducted a pre-delivery inspection and the respondent-1/complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after being fully satisfied.

6.             Respondent-1/Complainant had filed rejoinder wherein the stand taken in the complaint was reiterated and averments made by OPs in their written statement had been controverted and denied. .

7.             The parties had led their evidence. After considering the evidence filed by the parties, the Ld. District Forum has passed the following orders:

                        “We have considered the rival case, evidence and submission & mental on record. Though OP1 is denying any defect in the car, the job cards and no. of repairs done by OP in during free service, however, speak otherwise. It was for OP1 to explain how despite replacement of parts, the problem persisted. This point out to the problem in the assembly stage of the car ad outside replacement cannot be constitute for assembly in workshop as an integrated work. In the light of evidence on record, we find that OP failed to get enjoyment and satisfaction of having a new car and got involved in repeat visits to workshops for noisy problem, which even after change of parts persisted.

                In the circumstances, we hold OP1 guilty of selling an imperfect car due to problem of manufacturing. After considering the entire case, we find that at this stage in 2014, replacement is not possible, as the car is out of production, and noted the car has served 12 years. In the given circumstances, we can only compensate the complainant. We award Rs. 3 lakhs for the deficiency and problems faced by him in new car. We also award Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and litigation expenses.”

8.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum, the appellant/OP-1 i.e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. has filed the present appeal. There is no dispute between the parties about the purchase of the car and also there is no dispute between the parties that the vehicle of the respondent-1/complainant was taken several times to the authorized workshop for the complaint of noisy suspension, shockers, door and the music system and the defects were admitted by the OPs right from the very beginning. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle of the respondent-1/complainant went to the service station of respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. on 17.09.2002, 27.02.2003, 07.06.2003 & 24.09.2003. Thus it is proved that vehicle in question is defective from the date of purchase which attracts that the expression “defect” as defined in Section 2(1)(f) of the Act, which reads as under:

          “ The expression ’defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract, express or implied, or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

9.             In order to establish “defect” in any goods, it has to be proved that (a) there is a fault, imperfection or shortcoming; (b) such fault, imperfection etc. is in the quality, standard, etc.; (c) which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force; or (d) which is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. As noted above the vehicle in question is manufactured  by an internationally renowned company with brand name “Suzuki”. A person purchasing a vehicle of the said brand takes it for granted that the quality and standard of the vehicle would be world class and hassle free. The problem of noisy rear suspension for which during the period from September 2002 to September 2003, the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop of the Dealer four times; for the problem of annoying noise from shockers on 17.09.2002, for noisy shockers and breaks, disconcerting noise from right front door and defect in fuel gauge on 27.02.2003; for noisy suspension on 07.06.2003 and 24.09.2003.

10.            In our opinion, such repeated visits to the workshop are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the vehicle had some fault, which was brought to the notice of the ‘dealer’ within three months of the purchase of the vehicle, and was admittedly repaired, during the warranty period. The bare fact that a brand new car needs to be taken to the workshop number of times, is per se demonstrative of the fact that there were shortcomings in the car. It was suffering from defects and was much below the expected quality and standard of the vehicle manufactured by “Suzuki”.  

11.            In our view, the Ld. District Forum rightly observed that number of repairs done by respondent-2/OP-2 during free service period are evident of the defects and how despite replacement of parts, the problem persisted. The Ld. District Forum observed that all that points to problem in the assembly stage of car and outside replacement cannot be substitute for same. Hence, the vehicle in question suffers from manufacturing defects. The appellant/OP-1 has stopped the production of the said car. Thus, the respondent/complainant is suffering major difficulty to get it repaired now. It is further stated that from the District Forum’s order dtd 8/7/2014 till date the respondent/complainant has spent Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lac) on repairs and to get insurance and pollution certificates.

12.            Hence in our view, the Ld. District Forum has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the subject vehicle has a manufacturing defect. The compensation and litigation cost has also been rightly awarded after considering the totality of facts and circumstance. We find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum and dismiss the appeal.

                A copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to District Forum for necessary information. Record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member