BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 150 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 05.11.2014.
Date of Decision : 11.1.2017.
Om Parkash son of Shri Hari Chand, resident of Ward No.12, House No.13, Adrash Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Shakti Motors (Sub Dealer of Maruti Suzuki) Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa, through its proprietor.
2. Shakti Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa (Authorized Dealer of Maruti Suzuki) through its proprietor.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Registered Office at Nelson Mandela Road, Plot No.1, Basant Kund, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Satbir Godara, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had purchased a new Swift Car of Maruti Suzuki model VDS BS-IV bearing engine No.491892, chassis No.676812, model 2014 for a sum of Rs.5,94,633/- from opposite party on 20.6.2014 with temporary registration No.HR-99-SK 5423. At the time of purchase of car, ops no.1 & 2 had given full guarantee regarding any manufacturing defect on behalf of op no.3. The complainant got insured the said vehicle with National Insurance Company Ltd. Sirsa through ops no.1 & 2 on 20.6.2014 valid up to 19.6.2015 and paid premium of Rs.22310/-. Thereafter, he got registered his Car with the Registering Authority (MV) Mandi Dabwali vide registration No. HR-25D-7933. When he started using the Car for his personal use, it came to his notice that there is problem of bubbling in the said car and he alongwith his son Ankur Mehta approached op no.1 and narrated the above said problem. On his complaint, the op no.1 got changed the clutch plates and pressure plate and told the complainant that there will be no such problems in future in the said car. However, the said problem of bubbling was not rectified and same exists as it is which was from the very beginning since the date of purchase of car. The complainant again approached op no.1 in this regard but op no.1 assured him that said problem will be rectified with the running of the vehicle as clutch plates and pressure plates which have been changed would take some time but the said problems were not removed and it seems that there is a manufacturing defect/problem in the car. The complainant also lodged the complaint with the care centre of ops on 19.8.2014 and 23.9.2014. The complainant have been requesting the ops to replace the said car with new one with further guarantee of any defect but nothing has been done. He has suffered financial loss, mental tension and harassment at the hands of ops. The complainant also got served legal notice upon ops on 6.9.2014 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Ops No.1 & 2 replied that prior to the delivery of the car to complainant same was undergone a pre delivery inspection and every thing was in perfect condition. There was no manufacturing defect at that time and there was no bubbling ever appeared in the vehicle till the delivery and even thereafter while availing the services the complainant never raised any complaint in that regard. It is further replied that Ankur Mehta checked the car in question after service and he has endorsed the satisfaction note and put his signature at the space provided for the customer signature. He admitted that he has no pending complaint regarding the car. The mentioning of the name of Ankur Mehta in the complaint is a creation so that he may be produced as witness. Moreover, even Ankur Mehta did never made any complaint regarding bubbling. However, during course of inspection when the car was brought for service with complaint that clutches is not working proper, it was intimated to said Ankur Mehta that it is a result of imperfect use of clutch. The pressure plate as well as the clutch plates at that time were not working properly. It was also informed that the car being driven by some untrained driver or a learner and as a result of his/her unskilled activity the mechanism of the clutch assembly has become disturbed and said Ankur and also complainant admitted the suggestions given by the mechanic. After informing these facts the clutch plates were opened and a severe wear and tear was found therein and the clutch assembly was to be replaced and same was replaced accordingly as per warrantee. Thereafter, proper care and caution was advised and after that the car was plied on the road in the presence of complainant and Ankur Mehta and they were properly satisfied. It is further submitted that it is relevant to mention here that all the repair and replacement of clutch assembly was conducted by the workshop and not by the dealer and complainant has not arrayed the manager of workshop who is competent person to reply facts and circumstances in perfect shape. The problem of bubbling has never been reported or intimated to the answering ops for its redressal. Remaining contents of the complaint have been also denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 replied that complainant did not report any problem at the time of first free service. The vehicle was brought on 30.8.2014 after 1136 Kms and he reported the problem of clutch pedal vibration and clutch overhaul was carried out free of cost under warranty and the complainant had taken the car to his satisfaction. On 10.12.2014, the vehicle was brought for routine maintenance 2nd free inspection service. The vehicle was duly inspected and second free service was done. The ops never refused to render warranty service to complainant as per the terms and conditions. However, the complainant did not cooperate to allow op no.1 to carry out the warranty job. The liability of answering op is limited as per Clause 3 of the warranty policy specifically enumerated on first page of service booklet which the answering op has fulfilled and complainant is bound by same. The manufacturer is only liable to carry out the repair and replace the defective component, if any. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. By way of evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C3, copy of from HR No.15 Ex.C4, copy of invoice Ex.C5, copy of sale certificate Ex.C6, copy of form 22 Ex.C7, copy of registration certificate Ex.C8, legal notice Ex.C9, job card Ex.C10, acknowledgment Ex.C11, postal receipts Ex.C12 to Ex.C14. On the other hand, op no.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Shubham Dixit, Territory Service Manager Ex.R1, copy of dealership agreement Ex.R2, copy of warranty policy Ex.R3, copy of PDI Job Card Ex.R4, copy of job card Ex.R5, job slip Ex.R6. Ops No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, reply to notice Ex.R8 and satisfaction note Ex.R9.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion/ report on file to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the car in question. He has also failed to prove that problem of bubbling in the car is as it is despite repair. From the copy of job card dated 30.8.2014 Ex.R5 it is evident that complainant reported the problem of clutch pedal vibration which was removed by changing clutch plates and pressure plate. At that time, complainant did not make any complaint of bubbling to the opposite parties. There is nothing on record to show that complainant thereafter also ever reported about the problem of bubbling in the car to the opposite parties and the opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. The opposite parties have placed on file satisfaction note Ex.R9 wherein it is mentioned that he is fully satisfied with the whole work done by Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. and he has no pending complaint against the dealer of Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Maruti Udyog Ltd. and said satisfaction note is signed by Ankur Mehta.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
