BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case No. : 226 of 2018.
Date of Institution : 12.09.2018.
Date of Decision : 25.04.2019.
Avinesh Kumar son of Shri Satpal Kamra resident of Ward No.3, Gali Baba Hardwari Wali, New Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Shakti Motors Private Limited Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager/Authorized officer.
2.Shakti Motors Private Limited Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Manager/Authorized person.
3.Maruti Suzuki India Limited Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.V.P.Arora, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Sandeep Tank, Adv. for Ops No.1 & 2. Sh.Rishabh Jindal, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that in the month of March, 2018 he had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Super Carry Diesel Limited bearing chasis No.E08AN1024044 Chasis No.113802 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.323437.50/- and the vehicle in question was having two years warranty/guarantee. There were defects in the vehicle, from the very beginning, as the running pickup of the same was very low/less besides consumption of much fuel and the vehicle was in non roadworthy condition. The complainant approached the Op No.1 and narrated all the defects, which gave assurance for removing the defects in the vehicle and if there would be any kind of manufacturing defect then the same would be replaced free of costs. The complainant left the vehicle in the workshop of OP No.2 where two regular services first at 5000 kms and 2nd at 10000 kms have been done but the defects were not removed. On 24.06.2018, the complainant loaded the said vehicle from M/s Kundan Lal Kamra for Hanumangarh but due to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle the same stopped working in the way to Hanumangarh, resulting into economic loss to the complainant besides harassment. It has been further averred that on 30.06.2018, the Ops delivered the vehicle to the complainant with false assurance that the vehicle is defect free. Now, the vehicle is still lying with the Ops in non-worthy condition from 01.07.2018 and it all happened due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant requested the Ops to replace the vehicle but to no avail and the Ops put off the matter on one ground or the other despite the fact that the vehicle is in guarantee period. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the Ops but the Ops did not redress his grievance. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. Op Nos. 1 & 2 in their joint reply have submitted that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The Op No.1 did not allure the complainant and the guarantee/warrantee was subject to the guidelines of the company. The replying Ops are just dealer and for the purpose of redressal of grievance regarding any defect, the dealer is subject to rectification of the workshop established by Op No.3 and if any defect is approved by the engineer of the company, the same can be changed as per the terms and conditions under the warranty and guarantee period. The complainant has got done all the free services besides enjoying all the benefits of summer checkup camps. Whenever the complainant has visited the workshop for any defect, the same was rectified upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has refused to receive the delivery of the vehicle by saying that he will accept the vehicle through court only. The vehicle is defect free and is in roadworthy condition and if, any part thereof remains out of order, within the guarantee period, then the same would be changed as per terms and conditions duly signed by the owner of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Ops. Other contentions have been contorverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has filed the present complaint on vague and whimsical grounds. The vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 25.06.2018 at 17541 kms with a complaint of pickup low & tyre wear. After inspection, necessary repairs/replacements were carried out free of costs and the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle on 30.06.2018. Thereafter, the complainant has plied the vehicle another 20707 kms before the next visit to workshop on 26.11.2018 which shows that the complainant has used the vehicle extensively. The complainant has failed to set out any defect, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per provisions of The Consumer Protection Act. The obligation of the replying Op is only for providing warranty services during the period i.e. 2 years or 40000 kms from the date of sale. The vehicle in question has always been attended as per terms and conditions of warranty subject to certain terms and conditions and limitation as set out in Owner’s manual & service booklet. The relationship of replying Op with the Op Nos. 1 & 2 is that of principal to principal basis only. It has been further submitted that had there been any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the same would not have plied for such a distance and the complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP and the present complaint has been filed with malafide intentions to obtain undue gains from the replying Op. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
5.We have learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.
6.The perusal of the case reveals that the complainant in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents such as legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, sale certificate Ex.C5, Form 22 Ex.C6, Invoice Ex.C7, delivery challan Ex.C8, receipt Ex.C9, Counter foil Ex.C10, copy of RC Ex.C11, Certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C12, certificate Ex.C13 and bill of Kundal Lal Kamra Ex.C14. On the other hand, the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit of Harsh Bangarh Ex.RW1/A, wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply and document i.e. warranty policy Ex.R2 and Op Nos. 1 & 2 have tendered affidavit of Raj Kumar Goyal, authorized person Ex.RW1/B wherein he has deposed in terms of reply and also tendered documents reply to legal notice Ex.R3, postal receipt Ex.R4, certificate regarding delivery of vehicle Ex.R5 and acknowledgement Ex.R6.
7.It is undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant has purchased Maruti Suzuki Super Carry Diesel Limited for Rs.323437.50 from OP No.1 duly manufactured by Op No.2 with a warranty of two years. It is also proved fact on record that the vehicle was not working properly and was giving low pickup , as a result of which, the complainant has approached Ops time and again in order to get his vehicle defect free. It is also proved fact on record that the complainant has got free services from the Ops time and again on different dates and the Ops have provided services to the complainant regularly, but however, due to one or the other reason, the Ops could not get satisfy the complainant for the low pickup of the vehicle for which he has been approaching the Ops time and again. This fact has not been denied by the Ops during the course of arguments.
8.Though, it is the legal obligation of the Ops to provide proper and regular service to the consumer like complainant during the warranty period of the vehicle and the vehicle in question is within the warranty period, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get service from the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not led any expert evidence qua manufacturing defect in the vehicle; therefore, he is not entitled for the replacement of the vehicle.
9. In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint with a direction to the Ops to carry out the necessary repairs in the vehicle and to solve the problem of low pick up and make it defect free, without any costs, upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:25.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF,
