BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 28.04.2016.
Date of Decision : 22.2.2017.
Surinder Singh aged about 26 years son of Shri Jaswant Singh, resident of VPO Jhanda Kalan, Tehsil Sardoolgarh, District Mansa (Punjab).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shakti Motors Pvt. Limited (Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer), Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its partner/ prop.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Manesar, Gurgaon, 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. I.P.S. Fazil, 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
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased Car Alto K10 VXI temporary No. HR 99-UG (TEMP) 2382, model 5/2015 from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.VSL15000060 dated 3.6.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,28,079/-. The said vehicle is manufactured by op no.2. It is further averred that immediately after purchase of said vehicle, the inner colour of car was completely and badly faded and changed from white to yellow and due to this the car of complainant has become ugly. The complainant also suffered serious tension due to changing of colour. The complainant approached op no.1 and showed the serious defect of the car time to time but all the times, the op no.1 narrated the fact that they have written this fact to the company and company will replace it but all in vain. Now after postponing the matter on one pretext or the other, the ops have refused to replace the said car whereas the said car is still under guarantee period and there is a manufacturing defect in it and cannot be removed in any manner except replacement. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement to the effect that para no.2 which relates to fading of inner body colour is incorrect, hence denied because no such complaint ever been given to the answering op or any information sent to the op no.2/ manufacturer. Change if any in colour or fading thereof may be a result of several mode of use or use of improper, imperfect and misbranded material inside the car. Parking of vehicle direct under the sun for a long time due to which some type of gases occurred inside the car when the doors are closed and glasses are also tightly closed and due to action and reaction of those gases alteration may occur but it may happen only in case of carelessness. Rest of the para is superfluous in nature and simply designed to create a specific atmosphere so that it may give impression that fading of colour is a result of imperfect paint which is not possible because company never paint single car. A batch comprising of several cars can be painted at the same time with same combination of colour, so the story given by complainant is concocted.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement submitting therein that it is empathetically denied that immediately after purchasing the vehicle the inner colour of the car was completely faded and complainant reported the incident to op no.1 or that the vehicle is under guarantee or that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is submitted that when the alleged problem was made aware to the workshop, upon inspection it was observed that the vehicle had colour difference on the inside body parts. After inspection and probing with the complainant, it was noticed that the complainant had fitted foot mats from local shop, hence violating the warranty policy as per clause 4 (6) & (7) mentioned in the owner’s manual. It is further submitted that additional colour inside the vehicle and the colour of the local fitted seat cover were similar. The colour might have changed due to the chemical reaction between the seat cover and body part. The metal parts and plastic parts are manufactured separately using different processes. Discoloration of different location body parts manufactured separately clearly indicates influence of external factors/ contamination leading to such problem and do not attribute to manufacturing defect. It is also submitted that the non approved MGA parts i.e. local foot mats got entrapped with painted parts leading to discoloration of the parts inside the cabin. The answering op has been using the ultra-technical equipment and robot in its paint shop during the paint process of a vehicle. The vehicle so manufactured by it passes through various stages in paint process, which is a worldwide accepted ultra-method for painting of a body shell. The car forming subject matter of present complaint was manufactured in the State of the Art plant of answering op where the painting process of the car is carried out automatically with the aid of robots. While mentioning the whole painting process it has also been submitted that vehicle in question has undergone all the checks and only then final check ok was given by answering op before dispatching it to the dealer. The dealer at the time of sale to their customer’s carryout final pre-delivery inspection of all vehicles. The vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. If there would have been any problem as alleged it would have been evident at the time of sale. It is further submitted that the answering op provides warranty for a period of two years or 40,000 Kms, whichever is earlier and does not provide guarantee. This warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 22.4.2016, copy of sale certificate Ex.C3, copy of invoice Ex.C3(a), copy of certificate cum policy schedule Ex.C4. Op no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A, copy of dealership agreement Ex.R1 and copy of warranty policy Ex.R2. OP no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1/B, copy of job slip Ex.R3 and copy of warranty policy Ex.R4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There is nothing on file to presume any manufacturing defect in the car in question. The complainant has not controverted the stand of the opposite parties by placing on file any expert opinion. The complainant himself has placed on file copy of letter dated 22.4.2016 written by ops to him as Ex.C2 whereby the ops informed the complainant that on 6.2.2016 the car was brought to them with the problem of paint. In the Car, foot mat of local market (non genuine) are fitted due to which there is very much heat in the vehicle and due to this reason there is problem of paint. It is also mentioned in this letter that complainant was asked at that time also to remove local parts otherwise problem of paint may be enlarged and as per conditions of warranty work cannot be done on the car but they have requested to their Maruti TSM that they will got conducted the work on the car as per goodwill in the warranty but complainant has not given any response. As mentioned above, the complainant has not controverted the said stand of the opposite parties taken in their respective written statements as well as in their above said letter dated 22.4.2016 by way of any expert opinion that due to some manufacturing defect in the car the inner colour of car has been faded. So, complainant has failed to prove his case.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case narrated above, 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:22.02.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
