BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 277 of 2016                                                                         

                                                            Date of Institution         :  14.10.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    28.9.2017.

Radha Krishan son of Sh. Mota Ram, resident of village Ratta Tibba, District Fatehabad, now resident of village Patli Dabar, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Shakti Motors, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.

2. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office Gurgaon.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

     SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

               SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Manik Mehta,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.     

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that on 26.1.2014 complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Alto K-10 model VXI from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.3,51,289/- and its registration number is HR22J-8077 and its colour is white. That complainant has used this car in personal capacity for going to his job and for coming from job but however, the colour of his car has damaged from inside about five months ago and it has become yellowish whereas earlier its colour from inside was white. That when the complainant narrated this fact to op no.1 they told that he has used the local rubber mats so the colour has become yellow whereas he has only used the accessory of Maruti company and has not used local mats. The colour of the car has been damaged in two years due to use of lower quality and as and when complainant tried to make complaint to op no.1, he was not listened. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein it is submitted that no such discussion with regard to change of inside colour of paint ever taken place. However, it is found that car was giving foul smell from inside specially in the area of rear luggage box i.e. diggi and in this regard the answering op made an enquiry from the owner for what purpose he has used this car this foul smell coming out of the car is result of some rubber type material or it may be smell of some chemical. However, at that time change in colour was not noticed or that was not in existence nor any complaint in that regard was made at that time because at the time of delivery of the concerned car pre-delivery inspection was conducted as it is mandatory for all the cars which are likely to be delivered to its purchasers and nothing was found wrong in the concerned car. If the colour used inside of the car is changed, it may have concern with total batch but there is no complaint in other cars of that batch ever received from any area of the country.

3.                Opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement also took similar pleas as that of opposite party no.1.

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6, photographs Ex.C7 and report of Mechanic of Shri Vishavkarma motor garage Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8, affidavit Ex.R9.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The perusal of the record reveals that it is proved on record that complainant purchased an Alto Car from the opposite parties vide proforma invoice dated 26.1.2014 and paid the cost vide invoice dated 28.1.2014 amounting to Rs.3,22041/- (Ex.C2) and which was registered with the registration No.HR 22J-8077. There is specific allegation of the complainant that after few months of the purchase of the vehicle, the paint of the car from inside has been fading due to some manufacturing defect and he has been approaching the ops time and again with this complaint and he has placed on record job card to this effect also. In order to prove his plea, the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and photograph Ex.C7. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the op no.1 that at the time of inspection of the vehicle, the car was giving foul smell from inside specially from the rear luggage box (Diggi) and it may be smell of some chemical which may be result of the rubber type mats used in the car and there is no manufacturing defect. Similar is the plea of op no.2 qua the complaint of the complainant. Both the opposite parties in order to prove their defence plea have furnished affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R9 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that though the ops have taken this plea that due to the lower quality of the mats which was purchased by complainant from the market, the paint of the vehicle from inside was faded but, however, mat was purchased by the complainant from the op no.1 vide their sale invoice dated 27.1.2014 which is Ex.C3 on the file. The perusal of Ex.C3 reveals that same was issued by Shakti Motors Private Limited on 27.1.2014 and it finds mention the purchase of the Carpet Mat Boxwer Alto 800 for a consideration of Rs.875.14/- by complainant and the op no.1 has not denied issuance of this bill. So this plea of the ops that complainant has purchased lower quality mat from outside the market which are giving foul smell and as a result of which the paint of the car from inside was faded appears to be devoid of any merit rather from the evidence of the complainant it is proved on record that the paint of the car from inside was faded due to the reasons best known to the ops. The complainant has succeeded in proving the deficiency in service on the part of ops and  the complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed. Moreover, the complainant has also placed on record a certificate of Shri Vishavkarma Motor Garage Ex.C8 vide which expert has given his opinion that accessory of Maruti including mat is being used in the vehicle and white paint has been changed from inside.

8.                In view of above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out the paint work afresh inside the car including diggi to the satisfaction of the complainant without any cost within 10 days from the receipt of the vehicle from the complainant, failing which the ops shall be liable to compensate the complainant for the cost of the paint, if he get his vehicle painted outside from the market within further 15 days. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops shall be jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                         President,

Dated:28.09.2017.                          Member                  Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.