BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 22 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 19.01.2016.
Date of Decision : 31.05.2017.
Satvinder Singh son of Shri Mukhtayar Singh, resident of village Kariwala Tehsil Rania District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Shakti Motor Pvt. Ltd. (Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer) Dabwali Road, Sirsa-125055 (Haryana) through its authorized person/Manager.
2 Manesar Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Phase-3A IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its authorized person/signatory.
3 Maruti Suzuki, Regional Office at SCO-81, Sector-5, Panchkula Haryana (India) through its authorized person/Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHI, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. K.R. Jindal, Advocate for opposite parties no.2&3.
ORDER
The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 29.11.2014, the complainant had purchased a car Make Maruti Suzuki Swift Dezire VDI BSIV, PMA white in colour, Model 2014 from the op no.1. The op no.1 being the authorized dealer of op no.2 had charged an amount of Rs.6,22,825.28/- against invoice No. VSL 14000294 dated 29.11.2014. It is further averred that at the time of sale of the aforesaid vehicle, the op no.1 assured the complainant about the extra ordinary qualities of the vehicle and also told that this vehicle is different from other vehicles in comparison of mileage, pickup, maintenance, less consumption of fuel and has many other qualities. The complainant also got the vehicle in question registered in his name from the concerned Licensing Authority, Ellenabad under Registration No. HR-44G/9447. The complainant after purchase of the said vehicle started using the same for his personal purposes but the said vehicle started creating problems in its functioning at its running of about 3000 Kms only. The pickup of the car was almost Nil as there was some problem in the clutch plates of the car. It is necessary to mention here that as and when the complainant accelerated the car with a speed from 40 Kms to 70 Kms per hour, the same started consuming extra fuel which resulted into the less mileage and extra consumption of fuel. Not only this, the engine of the car used to release extra fume/smoke and further made much noise. The power brakes were also not in function. Apart from it, the gear box of the vehicle was releasing much undesired noise. In this manner, there were a number of faults in the said vehicle which were totally contrary to the assurance made by the op no.1 at the time of delivery of the car. It is further averred that on being noticed the above said faults in the functioning of the said car, the complainant on 31.07.2015 approached the op no.1 and requested to put the vehicle in proper functioning at which the op no.1 assured the complainant that it is not the matter of worry and advised to service the vehicle and promised that all the aforesaid faults will automatically be removed after getting service of the vehicle. The complainant acting upon the assurances and promises made by the op no.1 got service of the vehicle but inspite of service there was no change in the functioning of the vehicle rather the condition of the same kept on deteriorating day by day. The complainant kept on visiting the op no.1 in this regard but every time he was got satisfied by the opposite party by way of false assurances. It is further averred that the complainant on 04.09.2015 visited the op no.1 with regard to the aforesaid faults and the op no.1 very cleverly in order to falsely satisfy the complainant got checked the engine of the vehicle and after minor checking he handed over the possession of the car to the complainant on the pretext that the same is in OK condition and the defect in the engine has been removed. He further promised that no such problem will never be occurred in future. Believing upon the assurance of the op no.1, the complainant went back to his village but on the way to his village, the complainant noticed the same faults in the vehicle. This act on the part of the opposite party no.1 clearly shows that the op no.1 was making the complainant foolish and has been harassing and humiliating him indirectly. The complainant again kept on visiting the op no.1 on 22.09.2015 and then on 15.10.2015. On checking of gear box by the op no.1, the same rather started releasing extra voice and the same had become more faulty. On finding the manufacturing defect, the op no.1 telephonically contacted the complainant and required him to be present in the showroom of op no.1 alongwith the vehicle on 08.12.2015. The complainant acting upon the directions of the op no.1 remained present in the showroom but engineer never visited the showroom of the op no.1 and ultimately the complainant was directed to leave the showroom simply saying sorry. It is further averred that complainant received a letter dated 08.12.2015 from op no.1 vide which it was informed to the complainant that he was called for the checking of the vehicle by the factory team but the complainant refused to bring the vehicle for checking. This letter has been sent by the op no.1 with malafide intention with a false justification just in order to save his skin, whereas there is not an iota of truth in it. The complainant remained present on 08.12.2015 in the showroom of the op no.1 but no team of factory had met with the complainant which is clear from the entry entered in the entry register of the op no.1 at Sr. No.38. Since then the car of the complainant is in critical condition and complainant has been making requests to put the same in proper function but the op no.1 has been avoiding the complainant on false pretexts. It is further averred that on each and every visit of the complainant for repair of the vehicle, no job sheet has been issued by the op no.1 to the complainant inspite of repeated demands. The act and conduct on the parts of the opposite parties comes under the ambit of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which has caused a great mental tension, harassment and humiliation etc. to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The complainant finding no other way also got sent a registered legal notice to the op no.1 and 2 on 19.12.2015 and to all the ops on 4.1.2016 calling upon them to replace the aforesaid car with fresh one or to refund the price of the car along with interest thereon but to no effect. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that complainant has admitted that the car ran up to 3000 Kms. perfectly. Rest of the paras relates with the concocted notions. The complainant wants to say that car was consuming extra fuel but he did not annex any pollution certificate which may connect the allegation with the result. The brakes and the engine are having two different mechanism and mode of working cannot be annexed with each other. In case the driver presses the paddle of brakes alongwith the accelerator certainly the engine will ooze out extra smoke but it cannot be termed as defective action of the vehicle rather it is a human mistake. It is relevant to mention here that the vehicle took services from the authorized service center as per job card and it is revealed that some voice was coming out from the area of gear box and same was handled in course of its checking by the competent mechanic. The complainant has enjoyed the service facility several times and the services are being provided to all the purchaser free of cost as well as paid services and services are also provided on extended warranty option. It has been further submitted that the complainant has made authorized dealer as party in this complaint and not the authorized workshop manager. The consumer was satisfied with the services provided by the manufacturer’s service center. It has been further submitted that it is relevant to mention here that it is personal habit of driver to use clutch of the vehicle as per his own attitude and skill of driving and same may result simple or severe wear and tear to clutch plates which may create some kind of defect in the gear box or in the connected parts. On 21.10.2015 workshop concerned issued a letter with the subject regarding humming noise of the gear box and that was served upon the complainant and another letter was also issued to the complainant for the purpose of checking of vehicle by the engineer but the complainant has not come forward. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
3. The ops no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement have submitted that the answering op is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e., two 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 complainant failed to set out any specific allegation in the present complaint against the ops. It has been further submitted that complainant was negligent in maintenance of the vehicle. The vehicle was not sent for 1st periodic scheduled free service and was brought for 2nd free service on 04.07.2015 at 5,362 kms against the stipulated mileage of 5000 kms and for 3rd free service on 02.01.2016 at 10934 kms against the stipulated mileage of 10000 kms thereby violating the warranty as per Clause 4(9) as enumerated in the Owner’s Manual & Service Booklet. It is denied that the vehicle started creating problems at 3,000 kms only. As alleged in the complaint no problems were reported by the complainant at any time to the workshop of op no.1 when the vehicle was sent twice at 5362 kms and 5494 kms. It has been further submitted that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of op no.1 on 31.07.2015 at 6314 kms and noise from front was reported. Then the vehicle was sent to the workshop of op no.1 on 4.9.2015 at 6866 kms and noise from gear box was reported. Both the times, the vehicle was attended as per warranty and after carrying out the necessary repairs the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in perfect Ok condition. There were no defects in the vehicle and there was no act of omission or commission on the part of answering ops and warranty obligations were totally taken care of. The complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle as same was plied for around 2000 kms after the said incident before next time the vehicle was sent to the workshop of op no.1. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of op no.1 for noise in gear box. Upon inspection necessary parts were replaced free of cost under Warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. It has been further submitted that the complainant has suppressed material facts to mislead this Forum. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of op no.1 on 08.12.2015. The vehicle was inspected, but the complainant refused to carry out further inspection and repairs for the reasons best known to him. The automobile is a mechanic device and when plied extensively need proper care and maintenance. Proper inspection needed to be carried out to ascertain the actual problem but the complainant refused the same and hence, caused hindrance in repair of the vehicle. The complainant was also requested to bring the vehicle for inspection vide letter dated 08.12.2015 but to no effect. It is further submitted that the vehicle has been plied for 10934 kms as on 02.01.2016 i.e. within 13 months of purchase which clearly indicates purposeful and extensive usage by the complainant. The complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle and had there been any defect the vehicle would not have covered such huge mileage in 13 months. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-affidavit of Amrik Singh, Ex. C3 affidavit of Mukhtayar Singh, Ex. C4, and Ex. C5 copies of legal notices; Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 postal receipts, Ex.C8 legal notice, Ex.C9 document of India post, Ex.C10 detail of post, Ex.C11A registered envelope, Ex.11B acknowledgment, Ex.C12 detail of post, Ex.C13 acknowledgment, copies of register regarding entry of vehicle Ex.C14 to Ex.C17, Ex.C18 copy of sale certificate; Ex.C19 copy of form-22, Ex.C20 copy of form-15, Ex.C21 copy of tax/ vehicle & charges invoice, Ex.C22 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C23 copy of vat invoice, Ex.C24 letter dated 21.10.2015, Ex.C25 registered envelope, Ex.C26 postal receipt, Ex.C27 letter dated 8.12.2015, Ex.C28 registered envelope, Ex.C29 postal receipt and photographs Ex.C30 to Ex.C39 and documents Ex.C40 to Ex.C56. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1/A- supporting affidavit of Sh. Love Chaudhary Territory Service Manager; Ex.R2-Dealership Agreement, Ex. R3 copy of PDI JOB CARD, Ex.R4 copy of job slip, Ex.R5 copy of letter dated 08.12.2015, Ex.R6 affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, Ex.R7 reply to the legal notice dated 17.12.2015, Ex.R8 and Ex.R9 copies of vehicle history, Ex.R10 copy of postal receipt and Ex.R11 copy of acknowledgement.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the car in question from opposite party no.1 on 29.11.2014 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C21. However, there is nothing on file to prove any manufacturing defect in the car in question except humming noise in gear box. The car in question had run up to 10934 Kms as on 2.1.2016. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the car in question, it would not have run for such distance. The defects so pointed out by the complainant i.e. extra consumption of fuel and defect in the gear box cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. Such normal wear and tear in a running machinery can occur. There is no expert opinion on the file to prove that vehicle gives less mileage and consumes extra fuel due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. From the entire record available on file i.e vehicle history etc. it is evident that grievance of the complainant only relates to noise in the gear box of the vehicle and as is evident from the vehicle/ visit history Ex.R8 and Ex.R9, he has not reported any other defects to the opposite parties. The vehicle was repaired free of charge on 15.10.2015 at workshop of Shakti Motors, but it could not be made defect free inspite of change of some parts though no charges were charged from the owner. So, the ops are deficient in service in this regard. Hence, we are of the considered view that opposite parties are liable to set the gear box of the vehicle in question defect free.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to set the gear box of the car in question of the complainant defect free without any charges from the complainant. The complainant is directed to produce the vehicle in question to the workshop of opposite party no.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order or latest by 30.6.2017 whichever is earlier and thereafter all the opposite parties jointly and severally will do the needful as per above direction within further period of 15 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to Rs.200/- per day as penalty from the ops subject to maximum of Rs.20,000/-. 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. Presiding Member,
Dated: 31.05.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
