BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 38 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.02.2017
Date of Decision : 30.11.2017
Sadhu Singh, aged about 35 years, son of Sh. Gian Singh, resident of House No.1562, Sector 20, HUDA, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. Dabwali Road, Sirsa, through its proprietor/partner/Manager or authorized person.
- Regional office(North IV), Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160008, through its Manager/Officer Incharge
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. S.S. Dhot, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Sandeep Tank, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief facts of the case of complainant are that the complainant has purchased one new Car Ertiga ZD1 BSIV, from op no.1, which is the authorized dealer of op no.2, in the month of September, 2014. The purchased Car is bearing Engine No.D13A5085431, Chasis No.MA3FLEB1S00276706, CLASS OF VEHICLE : L.M.V.(JEEP/BYPSY) and this vehicle was allotted registration No.HR24U 8007. When the aforesaid Car was purchased by the complainant, the said car was having the Tyre of the company namely J.K. Tyre. At the time of sale of the above said car to the complainant, op no.1 had assured the complainant that the said car is having the tyre of the above said good and reputed company and there will be no complaint in it and these tyres will give good performance and that in case of any complaint in the tyres, the same will be replaced with new one, without charging any extra amount from the complainant, within the period of guarantee/warrantee. The complainant had purchased the above said vehicle on this assurance of op no.1 and bonafidely believing his version as true and correct. After purchase of the above said car, within few days of its use, the front tyre car of this car blasted suddenly and the tyre given as stypni became inflamed/damaged(phool gaya), and the same became useless for the complainant, therefore, under the circumstances the complainant had to purchase one new tyre for the said car from Singla Brothers, Hisar Road, Sirsa, for an amount of Rs.3600/- vide bill no.01990 dated 11.04.2016. After purchase of this new tyre, the complainant got the same fitted in the car and made the car fit for plying the same on the road. The complainant after purchase of the above said car told the same to op no.1 and also told him about the defect in the stypni tyre but the op no.1 did not care for the same. The complainant also contacted with op no.2 office in this regard but they also did not bother for the same. The complainant entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3600/- from the ops and also for the replacement of the defective tyre with new one, from the ops. The complainant approached and requested the ops for the payment of the above said amount and for replacement of the above said defective tyre with new one, but the ops continued putting the complainant off by one way or the other and now they have totally refused to accede to the request of the complainant, about a week back. Hence this complaint is being filed by the complainant. Both the ops being the manufacturer and dealer of the said car, are jointly and severally liable and responsible for the relief prayed for by the complainant. in this way, the ops are guilty of adopting unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for. The above said acts on the part of the ops amount to causing unnecessary loss, harassment, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the compensation of atleast Rs.20,000/- besides the other claim. Hence this complaint.
2. The OP No. 1 &2 appeared and filed its separate written statement in which they have taken preliminary objections as no cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties. Further submitted that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint just to harass and humiliate the answering ops and the complainant being dishonest in the litigation is not entitled to get any relief, hence the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merit, it is submitted by op no.1 that the op no.1 is the authorized dealer only and op no.2 is the manufacturer who provide vehicle in complete in all senses along with tires and in those respects authorized dealer has no concern. However guarantee and warrantee if provided by the company or manufacturer is to be executed by the dealer on its behalf. It is relevant to mention here that the parts made up of rubber have no guarantee or warrantee or if so same is concerned with the manufacturer of those parts including the tires as is in this case. As per the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company, the manufacturer provide free services to the purchaser. In this case the complainant enjoyed first free service was enjoyed on 3.11.2014; second free service on 7.2.2015 and in the course of service wheel balancing of 5 wheel and wheel alignment was done, then on 29.6.2015, customer made third visit for the service and even on that date wheel balancing was again done for four heads beside screen wash, cabin air filter, oil filter, element air cleaner and mobile oil which were also changed then again. Fourth running repair was done on 21.08.2015 and fifth service was provided on 15.09.2015. Similarly sixth visit was effected on 20.02.2016 and vehicle was demanding repair as wheel balancing of four wheel and wheel alignment and same was done. In the course of seventh visit on 25.11.2016 vehicle was washed and cleaned only. On 8th visit of the complainant made with regard to body repair of the car on 2.1.2017 and this work was conducted in the shape of outside labour. Thereafter, complainant visited for the 9th time for body repair of the car on 9.2.2017. At that time car was demanding several repairs and that was done and then the complainant visited on 27.03.2017 for the body repair of the car and the same was also done. The whole detail of the car repair right from 1st to 10th visit several times wheel alignment and wheel balancing was done but not even a single stretch of time he made the complaint of occurring of any defect in the tires nor the same was visible in the course of wheel balancing and wheel alignment as such there was no defect ever occurred in the tires rather the mode of repair and the type of repair indicates that car was used very roughly.
Opposite party no.2 in the written statement submitted that the answering OP is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e., 2 years or 40,000 kms, from the date of sale. The said warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in Owner’s manual & service booklet. The warranty for the said vehicle concluded on 11.10.2016 by efflux of time. It is submitted that the problem related to tyre has never been reported to any authorized workshop of the answering op and even otherwise also ‘tyre & tubes’ are not covered under warranty as per Clause 4(2). The complainant failed to set out any specific allegation in the present complaint against this op. It is further submitted that within a few days the front tyre blasted suddenly or that the stepney became inflated as alleged. It is submitted that the complainant had sent the vehicle to workshop of op no.1 ten times and the vehicle has been plied for more than 36575 kms as on 27.03.2017. But the problem of tyre has never been reported to the workshop as is evident from the record. Further submitted that no work/repairs related to tyre has ever been carries out at the workshop of op no.1. The complainant concocted a false story to obtain undue gains from the answering op. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering op is not the manufacturer of tyres. The tyre is not a manufactured item but assembled item, the guarantee/warranty of which is given by the manufacturer of such tyre and not the answering op. It is submitted that the bought out items such as battery, tyres, tubes, audio system, etc., does not come under the warranty ambit of manufacturer of car. Respective manufacturer of such bought out items give separate warranty as per their own terms & conditions. There was no problem in the vehicle and the problem related to tyre has never been reported to the ops as alleged. The averments lack pith and substance. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to recover any amount from the ops and also for replacement for defective tyre as alleged. It is reiterated that no problem of tyre has ever been reported by the complainant to the ops. Also as the tyre is not a manufactured item but assembled item, the guarantee/warranty of which is given by the manufacturer of such tyre and not the answering op. It is denied that the complainant approached the ops for payment and replacement of tyre or that there has been unfair trade practice on the part of the answering op as alleged. It is reiterated that the complainant has never reported any problem as related to tyre to the answering op and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is submitted that the vehicle has been plied for 36575 kms which clearly indicates that the complainant has been making purposeful and extensive usage of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that complainant himself has assumed defect in the vehicle for which the complainant is neither qualified nor have any expertise to comment. The complainant has failed to establish a case of unfair trade practice against the answering op. it is submitted that there were no defects in the vehicle and there was no act of omission or commission on part of answering op causing any loss or harassment to the complainant. the complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim against the answering op, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex. P1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.P2 bill of tyre, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs, Ex.P5 copy of RC, whereas, OP has tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Shubham Dixit, Ex.R2 dealership agreement, Ex.R3 warranty policy, Ex.R4 affidavit of Raj Kumar Goyal, Authorized signatory of M/s Shakti Motors Private Limited, Sirsa, Ex.R5 Vehicle history.
4. We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is an admitted fact of both the parties that the complainant purchased new Car Ertiga ZD1 BSIV, from op no.1, who is the authorized dealer of op no.2, in the month of September, 2014 bearing registration No.HR24U 8007. According to the complainant the said car was having tyre of company namely JK tyres. The complainant claimed that within a few days, the front tyre of the car blasted suddenly and the tyre given as stypni became inflamed/damaged and it became useless. He has to purchase one new tyre for his car from Singla Brothers vide bill no.01990 dated 11.04.2016 for Rs.3600/-. The complainant contacted the op no.1 and 2 about the defect in the stypni tyre with request to replace the defective tyre with new one but the ops refused to accede his request. Hence he has knocked the door of the Consumer Forum.
6. On the other hand, opposite parties have objected that the parts made of rubber have no guarantee or warranty and his complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to dismissed. In support of their contention they have stated that the complainant enjoyed first free service on 3.11.2014, second free service 7.2.2015, third service on 29.06.2015 and on each such dates wheel balancing and wheel alignment was done on several other subsequent dates as per need of repair of the car. Right from first to tenth visit several times wheel balancing and wheel alignment was done but not even on a single occasion he made the complaint of occurring any defect in the tyres nor any such defect visible at the time of wheel balancing and wheel alignment. This happened due to the rough use of the car, hence his complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. It has further been averred that the car has run 36575 kms which indicates that the complainant has been using the vehicle extensively and roughly. In support of their averments they have submitted affidavit of Shubham Dixit as Ex.R1, affidavit of Raj Kumar Goyal as Ex.R4, Ex. R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5(vehicle history)
The complainant has supported his claim by producing evidence in the form of affidavit of Sadhu Singh Ex.P1, Ex.P2 bill, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 photographs of the tyre in question, Ex.P5 copy of RC of the car. The counsel for op no.2 has stated at bar that there is no relation between his client and the owner of the car. Hence his client is not liable for any damage of the tyre but we do not agree with the contention of the ops. The ops have failed to prove that the tyre became defective due to extensive and rough use of car by way of cogent evidence. The complainant has not submitted any bill/ estimate for the replacement of another inflated tyre. We are of the opinion that the replacement cost of the said inflated tyre will be equal to Rs.3600/-. Thus, the replacement cost has been arrived at Rs.7200/- for both the tyres subject to depreciation.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint. We are of the considered opinion that ops are liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant on account of defective tyres of the car. We direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3600/-(Rs.7200-3600 as depreciation) subject to deposit of said one blasted tyre and another inflated tyre with the ops within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation on account of his harassment, mental agony, deficiency in service and litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.11.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
