Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/154/2015

V.Muthumanickam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri.Kenichi Ayukawa - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.09.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.09.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 26^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.154/2015

 

 

V.Muthumanickam,

Flat No.108, Block 27,

Jeevan Bima Nagar,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai – 600 101.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.Shri.Kenichi Ayukawa,

Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasantkunj, New Delhi – 110 070.

 

2.The Regional Sales Manager,

M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited,

7^th Floor, Capital Towers,

180, Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

 

 

 

 

3.The Managing Director,

M/s. Kapico Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

No.197/309, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                : 30.10.2015

Counsel for Complainant                    : Party in Person

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Party    : M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam & Associates       

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                    : M/s. P.Arivudainambi & M.P.Mohandoss

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to replace the whole car and also to order compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Maruti Alto K10 car on 06.09.2012 from the 3^rd opposite party/dealer for valuable consideration and the car registration No.TN 02 AV 17792. The car was doing well up to 2015.

          2. After that from April 2015 onwards began to get rust formation in almost all parts of the chassis. The staff of the 3^rd opposite party under took a detailed study of the vehicle during each service. Further the customer care manager service area also inspected car during July 2015 and took photograph of the rust formation. However no one care to rectify the defects. The complainant uses the car for about 15,000/- kilometers. The weather strip of the window failed to prevent entry of water into door. Two holes at the bonnet and the firewall area are rusted as the outlet is not effective. Many cars are parked under the trees in his colony never developed any rust. The complainant issued notice to the opposite parties to rectify the defect and however they failed to rectify the same. The rust formation allowed the body of the car proves manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to replace the whole car and also to order compensation for mental agony with costs of the complaint. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The alleged defect of rust developing in the vehicle has emerged because of external facts and not by any manufacturing defect. After through various stages passed the car is being manufactured. The robot is used for painting purpose.

          4. The vehicle was sent to the work shop on 26.06.2015 with the complaint of rusting/corrosion for inspection, it was found that the rust formation was due to external factors and not due to any manufacturing defect. The rust formation was also due to possibilities of accumulation of road salt, tort moistures, and abrasion by stones, dust control chemical cumulative moistures in certain area of an extended period and with washing the vehicle with water. The complainant proper maintenance of vehicle and failed to abide the warranty terms and conditions. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicles and hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party is only a dealer. He has nothing to do with the manufacturing.   On the applicant’s complaint about the rust formation, the 2^nd opposite party  authorities at the Regional Level have inspected the subject vehicle on 26.06.2015  and in the course of inspection, it has been pointed out by the technical personnel working under the 2^nd opposite party to the applicant that the traces for the rust formation over a period of time. Further, the 2^nd opposite party has categorically replied in his e-mail dated 26.06.2015 to the applicant that the formation of rust on the chassis would not cover the warranty, because it is not due to manufacturing or material defect as per the Maruti Suzuki India  Ltd., Warranty policy. As per the Maruti Extended Warranty Coverage, if any defects found in the Maruti Vehicle within the extended warranty coverage period in electrical or mechanical part alone are covered and the same shall be replaced at no cost to the owner if only when Maruti acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. Therefore in the case on hand, the claim of the applicant that formation of rust in the chassis is not covered in the warranty and therefore the claim of the applicant is not sustainable.  Therefore this opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant purchased a Maruti Alto K10 car on 06.09.2012 from the 3^rd opposite party/ dealer. The registration No. of the vehicle is TN 02 AV 1792. The said car was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is the registered office of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant paid the vehicle cost under Ex.A1 & Ex.A3. Ex.A2 is the warranty card. Till March 2015 the vehicle was doing well. 

          8. The complainant alleged deficiency in the vehicle is that April 2015 onwards rust formed in almost all parts of the chassis and the same was  complained to the  opposite parties and their technician and other officials of the opposite parties came and inspected the vehicle and took photographs and further the other Maruti Cars standing in his  colony under the trees never gets rust in the chassis and therefore there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and hence the complaints seeks replacement of the vehicle.

          9. The opposite parties admits that their officials inspected the vehicle and rust formed under the chassis of the complainant vehicle and however the vehicle is not having  any manufacturing defect and the same was occurred due to improper and negligent maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant and therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          10. The complainant took delivery of vehicle on 06.09.2012 and there is no problem in the vehicle till March 2015 and the complainant used the vehicle for more than 2 ½ years without any defect in the vehicle. The opposite parties would contend that the rust could form due to various reasons   that due to accumulation of road salt, tort moistures, abrasion by stones, dust control chemical cumulative moistures in certain area of this in an extended period and washing the vehicle with hard water.  Further on inspection the opposite party technician shown traces of water cumulative and dust materials which lead for the rust formation over the period of time. The said fact was also replied to the complainant through the first opposite party reply mail dated 26.06.2015. This fact was not denied by the complainant. Therefore as contended by the opposite parties the rust was formed due to the traces of water accumulation and dust materials was formed. Further, this fact establishes that the complainant has not properly maintained the vehicle properly and that is why rust was formed in the basis.

          11. The complainant seeks replacement of vehicle due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Without any disputes the vehicle is running in good condition. Only traces of water alone formed on the chassis of the vehicle.  The traces of water accumulated under the chassis due to various reasons. The complainant has to establish that how the formation of rust is a manufacturing defect due to traces of water found in the chassis. There is no expert evidence produced or examined by the complainant that the formation of rust is a manufacturing defect. Therefore we do not agree the contention of the complainant that the formation of rust in the chassis is the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have   not committed any deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th day of September 2017.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.08.2012                   Receipt for Rs.3,66,041/- bearing No.34547 dated

                                                    31.08.2012 of opposite party -3

 

Ex.A2 dated 10.09.2012                   Certificate of Extended Warranty

 

Ex.A3 dated 02.02.2015                   Cash Memo No.BC 14005494 dated 02.02.2015

                                                    for Rs.7306/- of OP-3 being paid service

 

Ex.A4 dated 26.06.2015                   E-mail dated 26 June 2015 from Territory Sales

                                                    Manager of opposite party – 1

 

Ex.A5 dated 29.06.2015                   Complainant’s complaint dated 29.06.2015 to

                                                    Opposite parties sent by speed post

 

Ex.A6 dated 29.06.2015                   Speed Post Receipts

 

Ex.A7 dated 18.12.2015                   Reminder Notice to opposite parties sent by the

                                                   Complainant

 

Ex.A8 dated 03.10.2012                   Cash Memo No.BC 12003175 dated 03.10.2012

                                                 Of the OP-3 being first free service.

 

Ex.A9 dated 28.03.2013                   Cash Memo No.BC 12007990 dated 28.03.2013

                                                 Of the OP-3 being second free service.

 

Ex.A10 dated 03.09.2013       Cash Memo No.BC 13008740 dated 03.09.2013 of

                                                     the op – 3 being Third Free Service

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Warranty policy

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      ……. NIL …….

                                               

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT