BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 3 of 2013
Date of Institution : 1.1.2013
Date of Decision : 17.9.2015
Jagat Singh Insa son of Sh.Prabhu Ram, resident of Gali no.2, Kalyan Nagar, Shah Satnam Ji Marg, Sirsa, tehsil and district Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dabwali road, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa, through its partner/proprietor.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Road, Gurgaon, distt. Gurgaon-122 015, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.G.K.Saraf, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gurdeep Gover, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.K.R.Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the complainant has purchased a Maruti Zen VXI Estilo bearing No. HR-24P-9931 from respondent no.1 on 2.1.2012 for Rs.3,57,335/- with financial assistance of State Bank of India, Air Force Station, Sirsa for his personal use. At that time, respondent no.1 gave guarantee of two years or upto 40000 kms. from its purchase and assured that all the defects of the car shall be removed without any charges of costs and in case of manufacturing defect, the said car will be replaced by the manufacturing company. After purchasing the car, Engine is not working properly and is creating serious disturbance and problems because of leakage of lubricant oil. The complainant approached op no.1 many times but all time, instead of removing the manufacturing defect op no.1 repaired the car and handed over with assurances that car will give proper performance, but all in vain.
2. On 22.12.2012, the car could not be started despite so many best efforts and, therefore, the complainant took the said car by connecting with some other vehicle and requested Op no.1 to remove the defects. Op no.1 prepared job order card dt. 22.12.2012 and assured that the defects will be removed after proper checking within one week period and complainant would be called on telephone.
3. On 26.12.2012, Op no.1 gave information on phone that said car has been repaired and demanded Rs.13370/- for repair costs, while the car is still under guarantee. When complainant refused to pay any repair charges, respondent refused to return the car and said car is still lying in the premises of respondent no.1. Hence, this complaint for direction to the opposite parties, for replacement of the car or to refund of its price Rs.3,57,335/- with upto date interest, besides compensation for harassment, humiliation, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses.
4. Case of the opposite party no.1, in its reply is that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a good condition. Alleged car first received in our Workshop on 11.12.2012 with body hit underneath as a result Engine oil was leaked out but without caring the car remained running and without the engine oil consequently Engine of the car was seized. The defect in the car was caused by misuse, negligence and insufficient care and such defects falls outside the scope of warranty policy of the company. On 15.12.2012 the complainant took the vehicle saying that he would get it repaired from the local market, but he again brought the car to Workshop on 25.12.2012 for repairing and signed the job card. Car of complainant was repaired as per his request and for it, total bill amounting to Rs.13,370/- was raised. But, neither the complainant paid the amount nor collected the vehicle despite letter dt. 15.1.2013. Hence, the complainant has no case of delay and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
5. OP no.2 in its reply has pleaded that the said warranty of 24 months or 40,000 kms. is subject to certain terms, conditions and limitations provided at the time of sale, which is part and parcel of sale contract. As per Clause 3, OP is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the owner for parts or labour. The obligation of warranty is specific as set in the owner’s manual. The complainant failed to abide by terms and conditions of warranty.
6. It is further pleaded that from records, at the time of first three free inspection services i.e. on 10.2.2012, 8.5.2012 and 13.9.2012, the complainant did not report the alleged problem nor any abnormality was observed by the expert service engineers of the workshop. OP no.2 also pleaded on the identical lines as of OP no.1 and denied all other averments being baseless, based on mere conjunctures and surmises
7. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on record Ex.CW1/A-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C1-registration certificate; Ex.C2-terms and conditions; Ex.C3-Vat Invoice; Ex.C4-sale certificate; Ex.C5-Form-22; Ex.C6-Vat Invoice; Ex.C7-Form HR No.15; Ex.C8-certificate of extended warranty; Ex.C9-warranty policy, whereas the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-affidavit of Shubham Dixit, TSM; Ex.R2-affidavit of Jasbir Singh, Works Manager of OP no.1; Ex.R3/A-job card retail cash memo; Ex.R3/B-Job card; Ex.R4/A-Pre-invoice (Service); Ex.R4/B-Job card; Ex.R5-letter dt.15.1.2013; Ex.R6-photographs; Ex.R7-warranty policy; Ex.R8-Dealership Agreement; Ex.R9-Job slip; Ex.R10-job card; Ex.R11-terms and conditions and Ex.R12-Job card Retail cash memo.
8. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties with the case law cited by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Dr.Hirak etc. in Revision Petition no.4709 of 2008 decided on 11.12.2014.
9. After examining the case from all the four corners, it is clear that only dispute between the parties is that Op no.1 sold the car manufactured by OP no.2 in the year 2011saying that it was 2012 model and this fact came to the notice of the complainant at the time when he filled the papers for getting the vehicle registered with registering authority. Beside it, main dispute between the parties is that the car in question having manufacturing defect due to which engine of the car was seized and car become useless. It is clear that there was a leakage of lubricant oil from the engine. As per the complainant it was due to manufacturing defect; whereas as per the Ops it was a result of misuse, mishandling of the car and as a result of underneath hitting. On the basis of record, it is clearly established that on 11.12.2012, the car was handed over to Op no.1 for its repair and to remove the defects. After that on 25.12.12 complainant was informed that car has been repaired and its repairing cost comes to Rs.13,370/- to be paid by the complainant. Complainant insisted that the car was in guarantee/warranty period and even guarantee period of the car has been extended as per extended registration Ex.C8 and it is valid upto 16.1.2016 or upto 80000 kms. whichever is earlier. Second main reason to knock the doors of the forum is the payment of repairing cost Rs.13,370/- as above. Regarding the remaining minor defects of the car like leakage of airs from the tyres and lock of the windows alleged in the complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has not insisted seriously. From the record, it is a fact that complainant purchased the car in the year 2012 whereas the car is of 2011 model. Second fact of the warranty and guarantee period has not been categorically denied by the Ops. To prove their version that leakage of engine lubricant was due to underneath hitting of the car, Ops produced as well as three photographs Ex.R6/A to Ex.R6/C. From any of the photograph which are of dated 11.12.2012 it cannot be believed that leakage of the lubricant was due to underneath hitting or there was any such type underneath hitting and this version of the Ops is not believable. Regarding the claim of the Ops that they informed the complainant well in time for collecting the vehicle from Op no.1 by paying bill amount of Rs.13370/-. If the vehicle is not collect within 3 days parking charges @ Rs.150/- per day will be charged. In this regard, we are of the considered view that such type of intimation is only due to covering the deficiency and negligence on the part of Ops. In this case, it is clearly established that seizure of engine was only due to leakage of engine lubricants due to defect in the relevant parts of the car which was since the very beginning and Ops took no pain to remove the same even repeated requests to Op no.1 as well as to Op no.2 and the car was in guarantee/warranty period. In our view within the guarantee/warranty period, it is the duty of the dealer and manufacturing company to change the defective parts and they cannot demand charges for this as in this case Ops demanded Rs.13370/- vide their letter Ex.R5. Car is lying in the premises of the Ops due to their illegal demand and accordingly, they are also not entitled for any parking charges as they demanded. We quash their demand of Rs.13370/- i.e. bill amount of repair charges and demand of parking charges 150/- per day vide Ex.R5. In this case, complainant has been deprived from the use of the car by keeping the car forcibly by the Ops in the premises of op no.1 for which he should be compensated. Beside it, we are of the considered view that car in question was purchased in the year of 2012 which is 2011 model and now there is end of 2015 and change of the car at this time is not genuine and we decline the same.
10. In view of the above discussion, Ops are held guilty for their negligent and deficient services by keeping the car with them for their illegal demands. Complaint in hand is accepted with the direction to Ops to hand over the car to the complainant after making it roadworthy without charging any cost of repair, parts or parking charges etc. Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental/ physical harassment suffered by the complainant and for depriving him from the use of the car for the period since the date it was handed over to Ops i.e. from 11.12.2012. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1000/-, has also been awarded to the complainant. Ops are directed to make the compliance of this order within one month, failing which complainant will be entitled to initiate the proceedings u/s 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:17.9.2015. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Jagat Singh Vs. Shakti Motors
Present: Sh.G.K.Saraf, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gurdeep Gover, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.K.R.Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 17.9.2015.
Presiding Member,
D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member. 14.9.2015
Present: Sh.G.K.Saraf, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Gurdeep Gover, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.K.R.Jindal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed with cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:17.9.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
