Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/583

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Stan Wheels (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                 C.C. No: 583 of 25.08.2014

                                                                      Date of Decision:29.05.2015                    

Sukhwinder Singh Sibia s/o Sh.Hardev Singh r/o V & P.O.Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. 

……Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Stan Wheels (P) Ltd., Tharike Road, Near Ayali Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

2.Sazuki Motors India Limited having its Head Office at Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                             Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Rohit Kumar, Adv, for complainant.

                             Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Adv. for Op1.

                   Sh.Sham Lal Ghai, Adv. for OP2.

 

                          ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Sukhwinder Singh Sibia(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘complainant’) against Stan Wheels (P) Ltd., Tharike Road, Near Ayali Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the vehicle purchased by the complainant from Ops and to compensate the complainant with Rs.1 lakh on account of deficiency in service and mental torture and harassment and to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Maruti Swift Dzire Tour Diesel car manufactured by Op2 bearing engine No.D13A2093574 having chassis No.MA3FSEB1S00453988 through OP1 vide bill No.1363 dated 4.3.2013 of OP1 for Rs.6,18,408/-. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant at the above address of OP1 and the same is now having registration No.PB-10-EB-3468.The OP2 being manufacturer is liable for all the defects in the vehicle and there is implied warranty of manufactured goods and the Ops are liable to replace the vehicle for defective working of its engine. The OP1 was to perform three mandatory free services of the new vehicles and its Ist service was performed on 2.4.2013 after the vehicle covered 805 Kms and the complainant was told that working of vehicle is perfectly all right. Op1 deliberately concealed the fact on that date that the engine was consuming larger quality of engine oil than required and did not inform the complainant about this fact taking benefit of his gullibility. However, complainant after about one and half month, noticed that engine had consumed huge quality of mobil oil, whereas, on that date i.e.22.5.2013, the vehicle had just covered only 2140 kms of distance since its date of purchase. The matter was brought to the notice of OP1 and they changed over seal of the gear box and put 1.2 liters of mobil oil in the engine by their job order NO.JC13001774. This consumption of huge quality of mobil oil during this period was unusual and not normal and it indicated that engine was not having normal working. The OP1 assured the complainant not to worry and asked to wait for some time and assured that things and will improve. The 2^nd free service was performed on 8.8.2013 after coverage of 4904 kms by the vehicle but again the mobil oil had to be charged on 25.10.2013 after coverage and distance of just 8560 kms. During 3^rd free service, after the vehicle had covered 10110 kms, entire mobil oil of engine i.e.3.1 liter was changed, but on 14.2.2014, when his vehicle had just covered 12014 kms again larger then usual consumption of mobil oil was noted and 800ml of mobil oil to make up the deficiency of mobil oil in engine was provided by the OP1. However, after, 14.2.2014, again the level of mobil oil had decreased and OP1 again made up deficiency of 1 liter of engine oil on 5.7.2014 instead of listening to request of the complainant to replace the defective vehicle. During this period, shaft assembly drive of gear box had also to be changed being defective. Inspite of so many requests of the complainant to replace the vehicle, Ops have turned deaf ear and rather have written to complainant that engine requires over-hauling. The vehicle is under warranty and has not even covered a distance of 20,000 kms since the date of purchase. The Ops are liable to replace the vehicle sold to the complainant with a new vehicle, to which, they have failed to do so. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate written reply.

4.                OP1 filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no pitch or substance in the baseless, imaginary accusations of the complainant. The answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged in this false and frivolous complaint to waste its valuable time and money despite the fact that answering OP had attended to the car of the complainant so many times and fuel consumption per 1000 was also discussed by the answering OP with the complainant. The answering OP had also asked the complainant, vide its letter dated 30.6.2014 to permit it to overhaul car’s engine to enable it to resolve his complaint but rather than heeding the most genuine request of the answering OP, the complainant jumped to the wrong conclusion and opted to file vague complaint, therefore, as the answering OP never refused to resolve the problem being faced by him, therefore, no deficiency in service can be pointed out by the complainant against it. The complainant is bound by his own act, conduct, admissions and affirmations, hence barred from filing the complaint. No manufacturing defect in vehicle is shown or established. The complainant is making hue and cry unnecessarily. No cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering OP as he has failed to establish any deficiency of the answering OP. Reply on facts, it is submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the car, so question of its replacement does not arise at all. It is submitted that answering OP has attended the car of the complainant so many times and fuel consumption per 1000 was also discussed by the answering OP with the complainant. It has been specifically denied that the answering OP are liable to replace the car in question or the same is suffering from any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                OP2 filed the separate written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is without cause of action against the answering OP as the answering OP had fulfilled its obligations under warranty as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The liability of the answering OP being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause -3 of the warranty policy as set out in the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet. The complainant has failed to set out any case for compensation within the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. The complaint has no case for deficiency/defect of any nature as defined u/s 2(f) & (g) of Act on the part of answering OP. Reply on facts, it is submitted that the Op1 sells the Maruti-Suzuki range of vehicle to its customer under its own invoice and sale certificate. Hence, the OP1 is seller of goods. A dealership agreement subsists between the MSIL and OP1 and relationship between MSIL and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the said dealership agreement. The dealers are independent entities carrying on its business. As per clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. Further, it is submitted that MSIL being the manufacturer of vehicle stands warranty to its new products sold by the dealer for a certain period and subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the owner’s Manual & Service Booklet supplied to him at the time of sale and delivery of the vehicle. As per clause 3 of the warranty, MSIL is liable to replace or repair any component shown to be defective if MSIL acknowledge the such defect is attributable to faulty material or poor workmanship at the time of manufacture. For obtaining warranty service, the complainant was required to produce his entire vehicle at the workshop at his own cost as per clause 6. During the service, the consumption of engine oil was found OK and as per the standards enumerated in the service booklet and no charge on account of engine oil was taken from the complainant. The complainant pointed out the engine oil leakage on 22.5.2013 at the time of opening of job card. The front man opened the job card and noted down the demanded repair as stated by the complainant. The service engineer inspected the vehicle and replaced the seal in order to arrest the problem and also checked the other parts related to the alleged problem and did not find any defect. It is submitted that the complainant is not an expert to comment on the standard of consumption of engine oil. It is only an apprehension in the mind of complainant that there is high consumption of engine oil. Further, it is submitted that the topping up of engine oil at the time of third free service is part of routine maintenance schedule as enumerated in the service booklet. The vehicle was serviced in due course and was found in perfect working condition. The consumption of engine oil was found as per the parameters mentioned in the service booklet at the time of 2^nd and 3^rd free services. Once the lubrication of the engine is over and engine becomes slightly old then the consumption of engine oil decreases. The same fact is also mentioned in the service manual. Further, it is submitted that in order to satisfy the complainant, a letter was issued by the workshop requesting him to bring his vehicle to the workshop for engine overhaul but the complainant refused to do so. The complainant was given the warranty benefits as per the agreed terms and conditions. The answering OP has also educated the complainant about the engine oil usage by an engine but the complainant is adamant. At the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

6.                Parties have adduced their respective evidence by way of tendering their affidavits and documents.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, it is submitted that the present complaint is pertaining to supply of car with a defective engine manufactured by OP2 and supplied to the complainant by OP1. As per own guidelines of Ops produced by complainant alongwith affidavit more than normal consumption/consumption/longer quantities of engine oil by engine and thereby reduction in oil quantity in engine can cause damage to engine and hence, admittedly the same is a major defect in the engine of vehicle. Admittedly, the Ops supplied a new car Maruti Swift in March 2013 vide bill and value mentioned in the complaint and evidence by the complainant. OP1 had performed first mandatory free service of vehicle on 2.4.2013 which had yet covered 805 kms and it was told to the complainant that working of vehicle is perfectly all right and deliberately concealed the fact that engine was consuming larger quantity of oil more than required. After on 8.8.2013, after coverage of 4904 Kms, second free service was performed but again on 25.10.2013 after covering distance of 8560 Kms, mobile oil in engine had to be changed. During third free service after coverage of 10110 Kms, entire mobil oil i.e. 3.1 liter had been changed but again at the time, when vehicle covered 12014 again there was larger than usual consumption and 800 ml of mobile oil had to be added and further, vehicle had just travelled 3000 kms after 3^rd service. All the deficiencies in oil were made up free of cost by OP1. This is a serious defect and requests of complainant to change the vehicle have been ignored by the Ops. All the assertions of complainant have not been denied. The reply of OP2 is evasive and is not specific on any allegations and rather there are counter allegations which are false and without any support in the shape of evidence and facts mentioned are alien to controversy and are vague and no specific explanation to allegations in complaint has been given.

9.                Learned counsel for the OP1 has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP1 and further, it has been specifically submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion of competent car/automobile engineer on the file regarding the alleged defect in his car qua alleged excessive consumption of mobil oil, hence, in the absence of this fact, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has admitted that the car has already run for over 15000 kms. The Op1 has been unnecessarily dragged in this false and frivolous complaint to waste its valuable time. The Op1 had also asked the complainant vide its letter dated 30.6.2014 to permit it to overhaul car’s engine to enable it to resolve his complaint but rather than heeding the most genuine request of the OP1, the complainant jumped to the wrong conclusion and opted to file vague complaint, therefore, as the OP1 never refused to resolve the problem being faced by the complainant, therefore, no deficiency in service can be pointed out by the complainant against OP1. There is no manufacturing defect in the car, so the question of its replacement does not arise at all.

10.              Learned counsel for the OP2 has contended that the present complaint is without any cause of action against the OP2 as the OP2 had fulfilled its obligations under warranty as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. The liability of the OP2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause -3 of the warranty policy as set out in the Owner’s Manual and Service Booklet. A dealership agreement subsists between MSIL and OP1 and relationship between MSIL and the dealer is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the said dealership agreement. The dealers are independent entities carrying on its business. As per clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such. Further, it has been contended that MSIL being the manufacturer of vehicle stands warranty to its new products sold by the dealer for a certain period and subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the owner’s Manual & Service Booklet supplied to him at the time of sale and delivery of the vehicle. As per clause 3 of the warranty, MSIL is liable to replace or repair any component shown to be defective if MSIL acknowledge such defect is attributable to faulty material or poor workmanship at the time of manufacture. For obtaining warranty service, the complainant was required to produce his entire vehicle at the workshop at his own cost as per clause 6. Further, it has been contended that in order to satisfy the complainant, a letter was issued by the workshop requesting him to bring his vehicle to the workshop for engine overhaul but the complainant refused to do so. The complainant was given the warranty benefits as per the agreed terms and conditions. The answering OP has also educated the complainant about the engine oil usage by an engine but the complainant is adamant.

11.              We have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP1 and have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the OP2 and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

12.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Maruti Suzuki Dzire Tour Diesel Car, manufactured by OP2 through OP1 vide bill NO.1363 dated 4.3.2013 of OP1 for Rs.6,18,408 which bears the registration No.PB-10-EB-3468. As per the allegations of the complainant that after one and half month of the purchase of the vehicle in question, the engine of the vehicle was consuming larger quality of mobil engine oil than required when the vehicle had just covered 2140 Kms of distance. OP1 had changed the over seal of gear box and put 1.2 liter of mobil oil in the engine by their job order No.JC13001774. Similarly, in the second free service which was performed on 8.8.2013 after coverage of 4904 Kms by the vehicle, again mobil oil had to be charged on 25.10.2013 after coverage and distance of 8560 Kms. During 3^rd free service, after the vehicle had covered 10110 kms, entire mobil oil of engine i.e.3.1 liter was changed, but on 14.2.2014, when his vehicle had just covered 12014 kms again larger than usual consumption of mobil oil was noted and 800ml of mobil oil to make up the deficiency of mobil oil in engine was provided by the OP1. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the OP1 that they had asked the complainant, vide its letter dated 30.6.2014 to permit it to overhaul car’s engine to enable it to resolve his complaint but rather than heeding the most genuine request of the OP1, the complainant had jumped to the wrong conclusion and opted to file vague complaint.

 13.             Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CA in support of his allegations levelled in the complaint and further, he has proved on record documents Ex.C1 copy of letter dated 20.6.2014 written by OP1 to the complainant qua his complaint of his vehicle in question requesting him to give permission for engine overhaul, Ex.C2 copy of certificate of registration of the vehicle in question, Ex.C3 copy of invoice issued by OP1 to the complainant qua the purchase of the vehicle in question, Ex.C4 to Ex.C11 copies of job card retail cash memos issued by OP1 to the complainant qua the services done by them qua his vehicle in question, Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 copy of insurance policy and schedule of premium, Ex.C14 copy of driving license of complainant, Ex.C15 copy of identity card of the complainant, Ex.C16 to Ex.C18 copies of payments receipt issued by the OP1 to the complainant qua the costs of the vehicle in question and Ex.C19 copy of Oil Level Check which was provided in the Booklet of the Ops.

14.              On the other hand, perusal of the evidence of OP1 reveals that OP1 has only furnished the affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Mukesh Kumar,its Accountant Incharge, in support of the plea taken by the OP1 in the written reply, whereas, Op2 has furnished affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Ranveer Singh Kalra, ASM in support of the plea taken by the OP2 in the written reply and further, OP2 has proved on record documents Ex.R2/A Dealership Agreement and Ex.R2/B copy of warranty policy.

15.              Perusal of the copy of letter dated 20.6.2014 Ex.C1 reveals that vide this letter, OP1 had made request to the complainant to give permission to overhaul the engine and only then, they are able to resolve his complaint, meaning thereby that OP1 had also conceded to the allegations of the complainant that vehicle of the complainant is consuming more engine oil than which is required for the normal working of the engine.

16.              Though, the complainant has made prayer for replacement of the vehicle with new one. However, perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any evidence of the automobile expert which is necessary in order to determine the fact that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect which cannot be cured without replacing the vehicle. So, complainant only appears to be entitled for the repair of the engine or in the alternative, for the replacement of the engine, if the same is not repairable. Since, the complainant is facing the problem since after 1 ½ months from the date of purchase of the vehicle and approached the OP1 time and again in order to resolve the problem in the vehicle in question and this clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops who are dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle.

17.              Hence, in view of the discussion, we hereby allow the complaint and as a result, we direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the engine of the car of the complainant even by overhauling and by replacing the defective parts of the same and to make the same proper working to the entire satisfaction of the complainant without any costs and in case, it is found that problem in the engine of car in question is not repairable and the same is not fit for proper working of the vehicle, then in that eventuality, to replace the complete engine of the car of the complainant with new one by completing all the formalities for changing the engine number in the RC of the vehicle without any costs. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.15,000/-(Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

    (Babita)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                    President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.05.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.