DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 377 of 2013. Date of Institution: 13.11.2013 Date of Decision: 01.09.2015
Mohan Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan Das, Block I-2nd, House No.32 Madangir, Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062
……Complainant.
Versus
- Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal, Territory Service Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, Regional Office, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
- Devinder Sharma, GM, Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd, A-25, Sector-34, Infocity Opp. Hero Honda, Gurgaon122001.
- Tarun Saxena, WM, Rohan Motors Ltd, 3695/31/14, Mathura Road, Sawal Vihar, Main Palwal City, Palwal, Haryana-121101.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mohan Kumar, complainant in person.
Sh. Rajesh Bodwal, Adv for OP-1
Ms. Sapna Sinha, Adv for OP-2
OP-3 exparte
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased Maruti Wagonr Car bearing Regd. No.DL-3-CBC-8426 on 07.03.2013 manufactured by OP-1 and the said car was having four years warranty and on 20.10.2013 he got his vehicle serviced for the third time free of charges and when he was going to Mathura and have travelled 20 kms away towards Mathura from Palwal then said car broke down and thereafter the complainant towed away his vehicle and taken to Palwal Maruti Service Station for repairing and paid a sum of Rs.1200/- and came to Delhi after hiring the taxi and paid a sum of Rs.1800/-. When the complainant went to OP-3 then motor mechanic disclosed that there was big hole in the engine. The complainant asked the opposite party No.3 to repair the same as the vehicle was within warranty. The complainant again visited OP-3 who replied to complainant that Maruti Company had denied to cover the case in warranty as the water had entered into the engine which broke the rod inside the engine and the rod damaged the whole engine. Thereafter he has taken the said car to opposite party No.2 for repairing on 28.10.2013 and OP-2 demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for engine repair + labour charges. He requested the opposite parties to repair the car as it was within the warranty but the opposite parties refused to accept his request on the ground that the water had entered into the engine assembly due to the negligence on the part of the complainant though there was no deep water on the way from Gurgaon to Madangir (Delhi) and to Palwal. Even there was no rain on 20.10.2013. The car of the complainant is stilled unrepaired with OP-2. Thus, the above said act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service on their part. He prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to replace/repair the damaged car engine free of cost and to pay Rs. 1 Lac as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation besides other misc. expenses incurred towards towing charges, conveyance etc Rs.12,506/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2. OP-1 in written reply has stated that during third free inspection service, normal as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out and the performance of the vehicle was found as per set standards. The water entered into the engine assembly of the vehicle i.e. Hydrostatic Lock and consequential damage was caused to the engine. During inspection, the connecting rod was found bent which caused consequential damage to the block of the engine which clearly substantiate a case of hydrostatic lock. Thus, the cause of alleged problem is attributed to complainant’s own negligent and careless driving habits and hence the repairs are not covered under the ambit of warranty. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
3 OP-2 in its written reply has also alleged that the vehicle in question was damaged due to hydrostatic lock which is not covered under the warranty as per the policy of the Maruti. The problem caused due to water/moisture entering in the engine of the vehicle and the engine got damaged due to the above said reason. Hence the request for the repair of the vehicle under warranty was refused by OP-1 the manufacturer. It is the prerogative of manufacturer to refuse the cover of the damage under the warranty as engine was damaged due to negligence of the complainant. During third free service the OP-2 has carried out as per maintenance schedule of Maruti. The same was as per the satisfaction of the complainant and the opposite party charged as per the policy for free service by Maruti. The car broke down because of the fault and negligence of the complainant himself. There was no fault in providing services to the complainant by OP-2.
4 OP-3 failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded exparte on 18.03.2014.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
6 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that he purchased Maruti Car bearing Regd. No.DL-3-CBC-8426 on 07.03.2013 manufactured by OP-1 and the said car was having four years warranty. On 20.10.2013 he got his vehicle serviced for the third time free of charges and when he was going to Mathura and have travelled about 20 km away towards Mathura from Palwal then the said car broke down and thereafter the complainant towed away his vehicle and taken to Palwal Maruti Service Station for repair and paid a sum of Rs.1200/- and came to Delhi after hiring taxi and paid a sum of Rs.1800/- and when the complainant went to OP-3 then motor mechanic disclosed that there was big hole in the engine and the complainant asked the OP-3 to repair the same as the vehicle was under warranty. However, later on OP-3 informed the complainant that the manufacturer OP-1 had replied that said engine of the car has broken down due to rod inside the said engine and the same was not covered under the warranty conditions and thereafter the complainant has taken the said car to OP-2 on 28.10.2013 and on 29.10.2013 the OP-2 asked the complainant to pay Rs.40,000/- for the repair of the vehicle and thereafter complainant reported the matter to the Maruti Customer Care vide complaint No.491007697 and later on when the complainant had met with the representative of OP-1 to OP-3 then complainant was informed that due to entering to water in the engine the engine of the vehicle was damaged and there was no manufacturing defect despite the fact that the car has not travelled in water at any point of time and there was no rain during the said period. It was also argued that if the damage was caused due to entering of the water the same had entered in the engine due to the negligence on the part of OP-2 where the complainant got the said car serviced free of cost on 20.10.2013 and as such the damage if any was due to negligence on the part of OP-2 and the same was liable to be rectified without any payment and thus, the amount charged on account of repair of said engine be ordered to be refunded along with harassment. To substantiate his arguments learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon certain news items.
7 However, as per the contention of the opposite parties there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and moreover there is no report of auto mobile engineer in order to come to the conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather the damage has taken place due to the hydraulic condition which has been caused on account of the negligence on the part of the complainant as the complainant himself had driven the said car in deep water and due to entering of water the hydraulic condition has developed which has caused damage to the engine and thus there was breach of condition of warranty. To substantiate their arguments learned counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon Ravinder Singh Mehta Vs M/s Auto Vikas Sales and Services Pvt. Ltd in Appeal No.FA-07/642 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Delhi on 23.02.2010 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs V.K.Bawa in Appeal No.428 of 2009 decided on 11.11.2009 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
8 However, after going through the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case there is no dispute that the said car was purchased by the complainant manufactured by OP-1 and he took the said vehicle for 3rd free service to OP-2 on 20.10.2013 and after getting free service from OP-2 the complainant started for Mathura and on the same day when the complainant had covered distance of approximately 78 kms after service then the said car broke down and the complainant reported the matter to the opposite parties and the vehicle was got inspected but the complainant had to pay charges allegedly on the ground that the said defect was not covered under the warranty. However, the claim has been illegally repudiated because it is evident that on 20.10.2013 the complainant got free service done from OP-2 and when the vehicle has covered the distance of approximately 78 kms on the same day when he was going to Mathura the said car broke down and on inspection it was found that there was hole in the engine which caused to the rod in the said engine and the rod has caused the hydraulic condition which was the result of entering of water in the engine. It is pertinent to mention here that on that day there was no rain and moreover as per the photographs attached the said car has been shown to have been parked along with road side and there is nothing in the said photographs to suggest that the said car was travelled in the deep water. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence in order to infer that the car has travelled in the water or the said car has developed hydraulic condition on account of natural rain. It is also pertinent to mention here that said defect had developed approximately after 2 hours and that to after covering a distance of only 78 kms and thus, there is nothing on file to come to the conclusion except that the water had entered into the engine at the service station of OP-2 when the said car was serviced free of cost as per the policy of OP-1. Therefore, if the water had entered into the engine due to the negligence of OP-2 which has caused the hydraulic condition of the engine then OP-2 was under an obligation to repair the same under the warranty period as the vehicle was very much covered within the warranty period as well as mileage warranty.
9 Therefore, if the opposite party no.2 has not repaired the said vehicle which was under warranty and there was no breach of condition on the part of the complainant then charging of the repairing amount by OP-2 tantamount to deficiency of service and as such we direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to refund the repair charges incurred due to repair of engine by the complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to him as well as litigation expenses. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
01.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
