BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.287/2006 against C.D.No.784/2004, Dist. Forum, Visakhapatnam.
Between:
Varun Motors Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Siripuram,
Visakhapatnam. Appellant/
Opp.party no.2
And
1.Sri Kakarlapudi Venkata Madhav Varma,
S/o.Sri Sankaram, Hindu, aged 34 years,
Builder & Interior Decorator,
R/o.D.No.9-365, Police Quarters Road,
Visalakshi Nagar,
Visakhapatnam-530 043. …Respondent/
Complainant
2. Maruthi Udyog Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Gurgoan (UP) … Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P.Ramachandran
Counsel for the respondent : Smt P.Vijaya Kumari
F.A.No.1504/2006 against C.D.No.784/2004, Dist. Forum, Visakhapatnam.
Between:
1.Maruti Udyog Ltd., represented by its M.D.,
Gurgaon (U.P.) , Head office, rep. By
Sr. Manager (Legal)
2. Maruthi Udyog Limited,
11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Building,
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001. …Appellants …
Vs.
1.Sh. Kakarlapudi Venkata Mahadev Verma,
S/o.SH.Sankaram,
R/o.D.No.9-365, Police Quarters Road,
Visalakshi Nagar,
Visakhapatnam-530 043 …Respondent/
Complainant
2. M/s. Varun Motors Limited
Siripuram,
Visakhapatnam-530 003. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.E.Phani Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : Smt.PVijaya Kumari –R1
P.Ramachandran-R2
CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND , HONB’BLE MEMBER .
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.784/04 on the file of District Forum, Visakhapatnam, opposite party no.2 preferred F.A.No. 287/2006 and opposite party no.1 preferred F.A.No.1504/06. Since both these appeals arise out of a common C.D.No.784/04 they are being disposed of by a common order.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant, an interior decorator and builder having passion for cars purchased Maruthi Esteem D1 Car on 12.10.2002 from the second opposite party and submits that since the date of purchase of the car the vehicle was giving him frequent troubles and stopped during running which could not be rectified even by service personnel of the opposite parties. Mileage of the vehicle has drastically fallen down and the opposite parties changed Calibrator but could not rectify the defect and one of the Service Engineer by name G.Prasannan even drove the vehicle for trial for a distance of 20 Kmts. and on his instructions calibrator was replaced and the original calibrator was sent for testing. On 23.10.2003 when the complainant was traveling to Vizianagaram 60 kms away from Visakhapatnam and returned at about 11 p.m. at night the complainant‘s vehicle stopped suddenly and it was raining heavily and he had to get his vehicle towed and also the road on both the sides was dug. He was inconvenienced with the VIP convoy proceeding behind his car and was frightened with the horns/sirens by the security people to move the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party no.1 giving the nightmarish experience he had, due to the defect in the vehicle. Opposite party no.1 acknowledged this letter in his reply dt.3.5.2004 and intimated the complainant that the Regional Service Representative was posted at Bangalore to assist them and more than 1 1/2 months lapsed but no such Regional Service Representative came and tested it. The complainant also sent the mail on 16.6.2004 for which the opposite party replied saying that the complainant would hear from them shortly. The complainant being a builder and interior decorator has to undertake travel of 100 to 150 kms. per day and due to defect in the vehicle and also air conditioning installed in the car and because opposite party no.2 had retained the vehicle for a period of more than two weeks, the complainant had to hire another vehicle and incur Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance. The complainant humbly submits that by purchasing Maruti Esteem D1 Car a product of opposite party no.1 through its dealer opposite party no.2 on 12.10.2002 the complainant had literally purchased the troubles. Vexed with their attitude, the complainant approached the Forum seeking direction to replace the car with a new vehicle or to refund the entire amount towards the price of Maruthi Esteem D1 Car together with Rs.15,000/- incurred by him towards the hiring of the vehicle and to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards damages and to pay costs.
Opposite party no.2 filed counter stating that the complainant purchased Marthi Car on 12.10.2002 from them but deny that their service personnel could not rectify the defects and submit that there are no defects in the car and admit that their personnel took the car for test drive of 20 kl.mts. along with the complainant and car never stopped once during the running. With the insistence of the complainant this opposite party suggested that the fuel injection pump be sent for testing and opposite party substituted a brand new model of the fuel injection pump and during testing no defect was found and original fuel injection pump was replaced as a goodwill gesture. A very comprehensive pre-delivery inspection is conducted on the car and there is no scope for any defect. They deny for want of knowledge the nightmarish experience of the complainant on 23.10.2003 that his vehicle stopped during pouring rain with a VIP convoy behind him. Opposite party no.2 submits that their Regional Service representative visits the entire region on a scheduled basis and would have looked into the complaint had the complainant sent a complaint to him. They deny that they retain the car for a period of two weeks and submits that the complainant had given his vehicle for servicing on 19.6.2004 for repairing minor defects and it was collected by the complainant on the very same day. The complainant always registered his satisfaction after every service and defect if any has to ascertain by a qualified technical expert and not by the Forum in a summary manner . Hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The 1st opposite party adopted the counter of the second opposite party.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 documents and the pleadings put forward allowed the complaint directing the opp.parties to immediately take the car and put it to testing and rectify the defects and deliver it to the complainant with necessary certification and warranty within 3 months from the date of order failure of which the opposite party is directed to replace the vehicle or return the sale amount together with damages of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order opposite party no.2 preferred F.A.No.287/2006 and opposite party no.1 filed F.A.No.1504/2006.
The learned counsel for the dealer i..e opposite party no. 2 submitted that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2002 and it ran for more than two years without any defect and the District Forum has not seen that the warranty period also expired and directed the appellant to rectify the defect of the car and replace the old car with a new one . Opposite party no.2 is only a dealer and has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the car inspite of that the District Forum has fasten the liability on the dealer to rectify the defects or replace the car.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party no.1 who is the manufacturer submitted that during the warranty period the appellants’ only obligation is to repair or replace the part at its sole discretion, any part which is shown to be defective or the equivalent at no cost to the owners for parts or labour , if the appellant company acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to a faulty material workmanship at the time of manufacture. The complainant having accepted the terms of warranty is bound by them and inspite of Calibrator of the vehicle being changed, it is stated by the complainant that the opposite parties could not rectify the defect. Opposite party denies for want of knowledge the nightmarish experience of the complainant as well as allegations that his service personnel could not rectify any of the defects and submitting that when the complainant had taken vehicle for test drive along with their service personnel the vehicle never stopped even once. Infact on the insistence of the complainant a new fuel injection pump was also fitted and on 23.11.2003 the vehicle was also test driven for 55 kms but the engine did not stop. The complainant brought his vehicle on 19.4.2004 for minor repairs which were done on the same date the complainant had used the vehicle for more than 41,000 kms and had there been any latent or manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the vehicle would not have run for this kind of mileage. It is evident from the records that full and complete warranty services were provided by this appellant and they fully discharged their obligation under the warranty and also contend that there is no technical expert’s opinion from an appropriate laboratory to prove that there was any manufacturing defect. They also contend that no complaint was made to them after the alleged stopping of the vehicle on the night of 23.10.2003 and the complainant visited the workshop only on 6.2.2004 and he availed services from the dealer on 15.4.2004, 10.5.2004 and 19.6.2004. Merely because the original service representative did not meet the complainant it does not amount to deficiency in service and hence they seek that appeal may be allowed
We have gone through the material on record.
The brief point that falls for consideration is whether there is any manufacturing defect in the car and if so if the dealer and manufacturer are liable?
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the Maruti Esteem D1 Car on 12.10.2002 and since then it was stopping and not running smoothly . He submits in his complaint that the service personnel of the opposite party could not rectify the defects and also the Fuel Injection Pump was replaced . But on 23.10.2003 when he was returning from Vizag and it was raining heavily pouring with a VIP convoy behind him, the vehicle stopped and he suffered a nightmarish experience of getting the vehicle towed and experienced stress. He submits that he is an interior decorator and builder and has to travel 100 to 150 k.m. per day and because of the defect in the vehicle he was forced to hire a vehicle and spent Rs.15,000/- towards the conveyance i.e. Rs.1000/- per day since the opposite partyno.2 dealer kept the vehicle for 15 days. It is the further case of the complainant that inspite of messages to the opposite parties they only said that the complainant would hear from them shortly but never rectified the defect. The sale of the vehicle by opposite party no.2 to the complainant is not in dispute and we observe from the record that the complainant has not filed any job cards to establish his case that what the latent manufacturing defect was and what steps the opposite party taken/not taken to rectify the manufacturing defect if any. Ex.A3 is a letter dt. 23.2.04 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party stating that his vehicle has stopped on 26.10.2003 and asked the opposite parties to do the needful in rectifying the defect. On 3.5.2004 opposite party replied acknowledging receipt of letter dt.22.4.2004 and asked the complainant to bear with them while they would look into the matter. Except Ex.A5 which is the E-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 4th June,2004 the complainant has not filed any of the job cards to state exactly what the defect was , while it is an admitted fact that fuel injection pump was replaced by the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 12.10.02 and this experience of the complainant occurred on 23.10.03. The complainant also has not filed any correspondence or documentary evidence to prove that he had met the dealer after the incident and the dealer had retained the vehicle with them for more than two weeks and still did not rectify the defect. There is only an E-mail dt.16.6.04 sent to the opposite parties wherein the opposite parties have stated that he would hear from them shortly that the complainant has also not filed any documentary evidence to prove that he hired the vehicle by spending Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.1000/- per day since he submits that his vehicle was lying with the dealer. As far as the complainant’s prayer for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount which has also been directed by the District Forum we are of the considered view that this direction is to be set aside since the complainant failed to establish any latent manufacturing defect which calls for complete replacement or refund of the amount paid . Moreover the vehicle is still with the complainant and he is using it since then. Having complained and having plied the vehicle for all these 7 years, the direction given by the District Forum would adversely affect the interest of the repairer who in fact submitted before this Commission that he has repaired the defects. Even otherwise the complainant has not represented his case or appeared before this commission to controvert this statement . The opposite parties also filed before this Commission job card no. 7001475 i.e. the report dt. 1.9.04 that FIP was replaced in which the complainant has not specified any remarks about other problems. The complainant has also complained of low mileage but did not file any documentary evidence in support of his contention. One weeks time was also given to file his written argument but the complainant did not choose to do so. To reiterate, in the absence of any documentary evidence to hold that there was any manufacturing defect or that the dealer has committed any act of deficiency of service when all along these 7 years the complainant has used and plied the vehicle, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of either opposite party no.1 or opposite party no.2 and hence both these appeals are allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed.
In the result these appeals F.A.No.287/2006 and F.A.No.1504/2006 are allowed and the complaint is dismissed . No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DT. 21.8.2009
