BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 191/2017 Filed on 08/05/2017

ORDER DATED:  14/12/2023

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

          The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a motor car Maruti Vitara Brezza ZDI bearing Registration No.KL-01-BZ-9926 from the 1^st opposite party on 31/12/2016.  The 1^st opposite party is an authorised dealer cum service centre of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  On 11/04/2017 the complainant entrusted the aforesaid car Maruti Vitara Brezza ZDI bearing Regn. No.KL-01-BZ-9926 with the 1^st opposite party for it’s second free service.  The 2^nd opposite party, who is the service advisor of the 1^st opposite party, attended the complainant.  Only a scratch on the left front bumper, was there on the vehicle as on 11/04/2017.  The 2^nd opposite party were only intended to do routine checkup and service.  As the complainant’s son was out of station, she could not take delivery of the vehicle on 11/04/2017, when it was ready after service.  The matter was informed to the opposite parties and they assured to keep the car with them till the complainant’s son arrive.  On 13/04/2017, when the complainant and her son visited the 1^st opposite party for taking delivery of the vehicle, it was noticed that the front wind shield glass of the car, which was parked in the premises of the 1^st opposite party, was broken.  While informed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties blamed the complainant for not taking the vehicle on 11/04/2017 or to avail their pick up / drop facility.  After a prolonged argument the 1^st opposite party agreed to replace the front wind shield glass with a new one.  The complainant reasonably believe that the replaced wind shield glass is of lesser grade or might be a duplicate of the original part since no document regarding the genuineness of the new wind shield glass was provided to her.  The opposite parties orally assured the genuineness of the product.  The complainant could feel that the replaced wind shield glass will never perform its efficiency with the original.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

                        The opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed version and they averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted by the opposite parties 1 &2 that the vehicle was given to the opposite parties on 11/04/2017 for second free service.  At the time of giving the vehicle for the service the complainant was advised to take delivery of the car on the same day itself since there is lack of parking space due to the large number of cars for service.  The complainant had also agreed to the same.  Further the complainant had also agreed to store her car at the workshop at her own risk as per the job card signed by her also.  It was specifically offered to the complainant as to whether she would like to have the car delivered to her house and the complainant had specifically refused the said offer and had told that the car would be picked up on the same day.  But after the service, the complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the car for the next days.  On 14/04/2017 the complainant and her son had come over to take delivery of the car and that time a small scratch /crack was noticed on the front windshield of the car.  The crack has occurred due to the fact that the car was parked at the delivery area and due to the heavy heat from the sun, the pressure inside the car which was locked with all the windows rolled up resulted in the crack in the windshield.  The crack had occurred due to the said reason and not as alleged by the complainant.  Even though the said scratch / crack was a negligible one, the opposite parties had offered to replace the windshield free of cost and accordingly had replaced the same with genuine Maruti Suzuki part on 15/04/2017 vide invoice No.RS 17000032.  Even though the complaint admittedly did not take delivery of the car after service and kept the vehicle in opposite parties garage for 2 days, in order to keep the goodwill and the customer relation the opposite parties had replaced the front windshield free of cost.  The 2^nd opposite party is a reputed dealer for Maruti Suzuki vehicles and only genuine parts are used in the service and the opposite parties parts warehouse is also under scrutiny of the manufacturer Maruti Suzuki.  So the allegation of the complainant that she believes that a spurious part was used can only be construed and understood as a false allegation made to purposefully create a cause of action for filing this complaint.  Further it is common knowledge that the windshield glass has printed data and the Maruti Suzuki name can also be found there.  The replaced windshield glass is a genuine Maruti Suzuki part.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2, hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost.

                        Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 has filed proof affidavit and has produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.  The complainant and opposite parties 1 & 2 filed argument notes.  The main allegation raised by the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party replaced the wind shield glass of the complainant’s vehicle with a duplicate one.  It is admitted by the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the complainant has entrusted her vehicle to them for the 2^nd free service on 11/04/2017 and also they have admitted that the wind shield glass was broken.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 have contended that they have replaced the wind shield glass free of cost.  It can be seen from Ext.B1 that the wind shield glass has been replaced by the 1^st opposite party.  Even though the allegation of the complainant that the replaced wind shield glass is a spurious one cannot be taken in to account as the complainant has not produced any evidence before this Commission to prove that the replaced glass was not an original one.  The part number of the wind shield can be seen from Ext.B1.  The complainant can easily verify with the part number to confirm that the replaced wind shield is original or not.  There is no evidence before this Commission to prove that the replaced wind shield was a spurious one. 

In the result the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Parties shall bear their own cost

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 14^th  day of December,  2023.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 191/2017

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT