DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.430/12
Sh. Arun Kumar
S/o Shri Vireder Kumar
R/o C-12, Lajpat Nagar-3,
New Delhi-110024 ….. Complainant
Versus
T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
E-260, Amar Colony,
Lajpat Nagar-4,
New Delhi-110024
Also at
A-191, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110019. .….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 24.08.12 Date of Order : 14.11.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Wagon-R LXI (colour Silky Silver Metallic), bearing registration No. DL-5CK0825, chassis No. 411746 and engine No. 7152413 from the OP vide invoice No. 11665. The complainant made the payment of Rs.4,64,589/- to the OP. The OP issued receipts dated 29.04.2012 and 03.05.2012. The complainant noticed that within 24 hours of the purchase of the said vehicle, the speedometer of the said vehicle was not working accurately and complainant made a complaint to the OP, who assured him, that the vehicle will be taken by the staff of the OP to the workshop of the OP and the defect will be rectified within 2-3 hours. On 7.5.12 at about 9.30 AM, the staff/ driver of the OP took the vehicle of the complainant for the purpose of removing the defect. The complainant was assured that the vehicle will be returned after rectification of the defect by 2.00 PM on the same day. At 03.00 PM the complainant enquired from the staff of the OP regarding status of the vehicle the staff of the OP stated that the vehicle will be returned within one hour. When the complainant enquired from the staff of the OP who, informed him that at about 5.30 PM during test drive, the vehicle met with a small accident resulting in a small scratch at the bumper and an extra day / time was sought to rectify the said defect. It was promised that the vehicle will be sent back by lunch time on 08.05.2012. It is submitted that the complainant made repeated enquiries about the return of the vehicle but the staff of the OP making excuses for a delay. Finally, at about 8.00 PM on 08.05.2012, when it was pitch dark, the driver of the OP returned the vehicle to the complainant saying that the defects have been rectified. On 09.05.2012 in the morning, when the complainant inspected the vehicle in daylight and was shocked to notice that the left side of the vehicle was rough and repainted. The rim portion was damaged and there was paint marks on the seat cover. When the complainant enquired from the staff / driver of the OP, he informed that the said vehicle was involved in an accident while the driver of the OP was driving the said vehicle and the said vehicle was taken to the police station Amar Colony, & the car was remained in the Police Station for entire day i.e. 07.05.2012. The complainant was also informed that the said vehicle was got released by the OP from the police station at night on 07.05.2012 and thereafter brought to the workshop for repair. It is submitted that the complainant requested the OP repeatedly but the OP did not disclose the exact details of the accident and the exact quantum of damage suffered by vehicle. OP did not disclose to the complainant as to whether any person suffered any injury on account of the said accident or whether any other vehicle got damaged on account of said accident. As the said vehicle, the entire left side of the vehicle was repainted and it is obvious that the car met with a major accident. It was the duty of the OP to inform the complainant about the accident and then proceed further in the matter and after discussion and after obtaining the consent of the complainant. The OP deliberately and intentionally delivered the vehicle at 8.00 PM, so that the complainant was unable to see the damage. It is submitted that the OP employee Mr. Manoj Verma, AGM came and inspected the vehicle and made verbal commitment to replace the damaged portions of the vehicle and to take care of future legal obligations related to the accident in question. The complainant asked him to put the verbal commitments in writing but he stated that he will discuss the matter with the seniors. Thereafter the representative of the OP avoided the complainant and backed out of all his verbal commitments. It is submitted that the value of the new vehicle was around Rs3.3 lacs to 3.4 lacs i.e. net loss of about 1.2 lacs, thus, the new vehicle of the complainant has straightaway sharp loss of value, due to the accident. The complainant requested the OP to replace the vehicle in question and to give an undertaking /indemnity to the effect that the OP will be liable and responsible for any loss or claim that the complainant may suffer due to the accident in question. However, the OP started avoiding the issue and neither replaced the vehicle nor gave the requisite undertaking / indemnity. The complainant has also reported the matter to the Maruti Udyog Ltd. but still the OP has not redressed his grivance. The complainant sent a legal notice on 7.6.12 to the OP, but, no reply was received. Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing following to the OP:-
- Direct the OP to replace the Wagon-R LXI with a new Wagon-R LXI;
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for harassment undergone by him and for loss of time incurred on account of the above mentioned defaults on part of the OP.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that when their mechanic was taking test drive along with the complainant, one another driver drove his vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner and scratched one side of the complainant’s car and later on OP repaired the same at the satisfaction of the complainant free of cost, but the complainant had tried to extort the money in this pretext and we have declined the same. The complainant filed frivolous complaint. It is denied that the odometer was not working properly. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was different from its old version, hence, the complainant could not understand the operation of new odometer, although there was no manufacture defect in that odometer. It is denied that the complainant made repeated enquiries about the return of the vehicle. It is submitted that all the update was available to the complainant and he was very much aware about the progress. It is submitted that the vehicle had already been repaired up to the mark. It is denied that the complainant inspected the vehicle in day light and found that the side portion were repainted or that rim portion was damaged or that there was paint mark on seat cover and it was well within the knowledge of the complainant. It is denied that the vehicle was involved in the accident and it is also denied that vehicle was remained in police station Amar Colony or that it was released from there. It is submitted that a few scratches were in the car, and the complainant was very well aware regarding that and further he was very well updated for its repair. It is further submitted that even though the OP is still ready to repair, if any for that effect but it is now quite OK. It is denied that the AGM came and inspected or that made verbal commitments to replace the damaged portion of the vehicle. No documentary proof is on record to prove the version of the complainant. It is also denied that the OP’s employee had assessed the car in question and net loss about 1.20 lacs. It is submitted that complainant had tried to extort the money from the OP and further he also tried to get replace his car but the OP already removed the scratches here and there was no loss to the car in question hence no question arises for its replacement. OP prayed to dismiss the complaint.
OP was proceeded exparte on 11.07.2013. The OP filed a copy of the order dated 01.05.2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in R.P No. 15/14 whereby the exparte order dated 11.07.2012 was set aside passed by this forum. The again OP had not appeared on 06.01.2016, 23.01.2016, 04.03.2016, 21.11.2016 and 09.01.2017, OP was again proceeded again exparte 09.01.2017.
Complainant has filed exparte evidence.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also carefully gone through the file very carefully.
OP has knowledge about the filing of the complaint but did not choose to contest the claim of the complainant.
Admittedly the complainant purchased Wagon-R Lxi, registration No. DLCK0825 from OP on 03.05.12 and paid a sum of Rs.4,64,589/-. The complainant filed the detailed invoice as Annexure C-1.
In response to the email dated 09.05.12, the OP sent an email dated 10.05.12 to the complainant stating that they are looking into the matter and necessary action will be taken. The complainant vide email dated 15.05.123 sent to the Manager of the Maruti Udyog and requested to replace the vehicle. The Maruti Udyog vide email dated 10.05.12 informed the complainant they are advising their Regional Service Manager, New Delhi to look into the matter and take necessary action. These emails are marked as Annexure C-3. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.06.12 as Annexure C-4. The complainant filed a letter dated 25.05.12 issued by the OP to the complainant. We mark as Annexure-1 for the purpose of identification wherein the OP has stated as
“We have offered them three extra services and replacement of two doors and Finder line.
Even after the said offer, we had spoken to him number of times but got no response from him, demanding us for replacement of car.
Last discussion, we had with him just a day back by your Group GM.
On the other hand our AGM Sales is also trying his level best to resolve the problem but the customer is just demanding the replacement of car.”
It is clear from the documents submitted by the parties that the OP offered the complainant three extra services and replacement of two doors and finder line. It is proved that the car met with an accident due to negligence of the OP. OP in their written submissions stated that the scratches were removed/ repaired free of cost. It amount to unfair trade practice as the OP had not replace the two doors & find a line, as the OP had given in writing to the complainant vide their letter dated 25.05.2012. The complainant suffered mental tension and agony as the new car met with an accident due to the fault of the OP as the complainant had purchased the car in question one day before. It amounts to deficiency of service & unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service. We allow the complaint and direct the OP to replace with new car or refund the cost of the new car to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay the cost of the new car alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 14.11.18
