BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Deepak Singla son of Shri Rajeshwar Parsad, resident of House No.74, Jain Charitable Hospital, Village and Post Office Adhoya (Hinduan) Abdulgarh, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

…..Complainant

Vs.

1. The Director, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana.
2. The Chairman/Director, Enkash Wheels, Opposite Gaushala, Barara, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurugram, Haryana through its Director.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Yogesh Kumar Sehgal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1 & 3.

                    Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.7,54,000/- alongwith interest
2. To pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs for mental agony and harassment;
3. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that  complainant has purchased a new Maruti Dzire VXI from OP No.2  on 29-05-2019 vide sale certificate dated 30-05-2019 and the said Maruti Dzire VXI was manufactured in the month April, 2019 with chassis no.MA3CZF63SKD519631, Engine No.K12MN2346504. The said vehicle was hypothecated with Axis Bank Limited. The warranty/guarantee of the abovesaid car was also given for five years from the date of its purchase. The registration number was allotted to the vehicle as HR-54-E-3733. At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the engine was vibrating little bit which was abnormal, but the employees of the dealership told that it is normal in such like cars. The complainant has been taking care of the vehicle by following all the instructions and directions given in the "Owner's Manual & Service Booklet" and other instructions/directions given by the OP No.2. The  first free service of the said vehicle was done on 16-06-019 vide Job Card No.JC19000739, Job Card dated 16-06-2019 by S.A. Name Rohit Kumar, Mechanic Name Parveen Kumar. After the first free service, the engine started vibrating more, during the change of every gear and when the first gear was shifted to second gear then it was vibrating badly. Similarly, the second free service was done on 06-08-2019 vide Job Card No.JC19001195 by S.A. Name Amjad Khan, Mechanic Name Najakat Ali Khan. At the time of second service, the complainant conveyed this problem to the service centre and they checked it and replied that it is routine vibration of the engine. Thereafter, the third free service was done on 22-11-2019 vide Job Card No.JC19002172 by SA Rohit Kumar, Mechanic Name: Parveen Kumar and Rs.2100/- was paid by the complainant. At that time also, the complainant told the abovesaid problem in the vehicle, but they put off the matter on one excuse or the other. The complainant took the vehicle again to the service station and the vehicle was checked vide Job Card No.JC20000805 on 17-08-2020 by SA Name Amjad Khan, Mechanic Name Amit Kumar and the complainant paid Rs.5100/- as various parts were replaced/changed. The complainant also took the said vehicle on 10-10 2020 for the problem of engine vibration as it was not cured inspite of various visits to the service station vide Job Card No.JC20005180 dated 10- 10-2020 Service Type RUNNING REPAIR, SA Name Bhagat Singh, Mechanic Name Abhijeet Singh, but the abovesaid defect of vibration was not cured on that day. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the service centre on 14-10-2020 with the same problem of vibration of engine and the vehicle was checked vide Job Card No.JC20005315 dated 14-10-2020, SA Name Vivek Passi, Mechanic Name Tarsem and on that day, the mechanic and other staff members checked the vehicle and some parts were changed and Rs.115/- was charged from the complainant and they assured and promised that now the said defect has been cured and in future, there will not be any such problem. For two days the vehicle was running good, but thereafter, also the engine again started vibrating and then the complainant gave telephonic call to the Service Centre and they replied that it is routine vibration in every such cars, but after some days, the engine vibration became more and more. Then on 24-10-2020 the complainant took the vehicle to Service Centre vide Job Card No.JC20005659 dated 24-10-2020, SA Name Manish Kumar, Mechanic Name Abhijeet Singh and told that the engine is vibrating very badly, but they have checked the vehicle and even they drove the car to Naraingarh, Ambala i.e. for about 40 kilometers and they assured and promised that they will cure the said vibration as they admitted that there is some big problem in the car as the engine is vibrating very badly. The sound of the engine is also abnormal. The employees of the service centre asked the complainant to come after some days with the vehicle as they have to discuss this issue with higher authorities. Then the complainant went to the Service Centre on 30-10-2020 vide Job Card No.JC20005841, SA Name Manish Kumar, Mechanic Name Abhijeet Singh and some work was done at Service Station and some parts were changed and the Service Centre employees directed the complainant to drive the vehicle for some days and to come again after 3/4 days. After this 3/4 days, the defect was not cured and the complainant again visited the Service Centre on 5-11-2020 vide Job Card No.JC20006073, SA Name Manish Kumar, Mechanic Name Tarsem for the same problem of engine vibration and wobbling. The road test was also done by the employees/mechanics of Service Centre, but the defect could not be traced out. They replied that there is manufacturing defect and now it cannot be cured. The complainant also requested Hemant (Working Manager) and Ravjit Singh (Territory Service Manager) to cure the defect, but all in vain. The vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect and inspite of various visits and repair; it is not being cured by the OPs and their Service Centers. The complainant has been suffering a lot and is deprived of being enjoyed the services of car. The complainant has spent more than Rs.7,54,000/- on this vehicle for its purchase, government tax etc. Legal notice dated 01.12.2020 sent in the matter to the OPs also did not yield any result. Hence this complaint.   
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the present complaint is also not maintainable as the same has been filed without any cause of action; this complaint is not supported by any material to prove any manufacturing defects in the said vehicle; etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant entered into an independent transaction with OP No.2 for the purchase of the vehicle in question to which the OPs No.1 and 3 neither privy nor received any consideration for the same. The complainant is not a 'Consumer' of OPs No.1 and 3 as far as the alleged transaction of sale is concerned. The vehicle in question had a manufacturer's warranty for 24 months or 40,000 kms, whichever is earlier. The complainant availed an extended warranty which starts after the expiry of manufacturer's warranty and is valid upto another 60,000 kms or 3 years, whichever is earlier. The extended warranty is not a mirror image of primary warranty and the benefit of the same depends on the compliance of the terms of primary warranty and instructions enumerated in the Owner's Manual & Service Booklet. Every consumer purchases a product after carrying out due inspection of the vehicle and the said concept is known as 'Caveat Emptor' i.e. let the buyer beware. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle from OP No.1 after carrying out necessary inspection and to his satisfaction. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim of engine vibration at the time of purchase. The complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story. The vehicle was sent for 1st free inspection service on 16.06.2019 at 1127 kms and no problem as related to engine vibration was reported by the complainant. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle was sent for 2nd free inspection service on 06.08.2019 at 4540 kms and again no problem as related to engine vibration was reported by the complainant. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant, in order to build a false case, has made frivolous allegations without placing any material on record to substantiate his claim. The averments of the complainants lack pith and substance. The vehicle was sent for 3rd free inspection service on 22.11.2019 at 9953 kms and yet again no problem of any kind was reported by the complainant. The complainant had not reported any concern related to engine vibration as alleged. When the alleged concern was not reported, there is no question of resolution of the concern. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claim. The vehicle was sent for periodic maintenance service to the workshop of OP No.2 on 17.08.2020 art 20051 kms. No problem as related to engine vibration was reported by the complainant during this visit. Proper service was carried out as per the terms and conditions of warranty. The amount of Rs.5,100/- charged by workshop of  OP No.2 was against the service carried out and the necessary parts which are to be replaced during the periodic maintenance service. There was no part replacement for the alleged concern of engine vibration because no concern of such sorts was reported by the complainant. The complainant had reported the alleged concern of engine vibration for the first time on 10.10.2020 at 22232 kms at the workshop of OP No.2. The vehicle was to be inspected to ascertain the existence of the alleged concern, if any. But the same could not be done due to paucity of time by the complainant. Hence, he was requested to bring his vehicle to the workshop on later date. The vehicle not attended in the workshop on 10.10.2020 due to paucity of time with the complainant. It was for this reason that the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 14.10.2020 at 22555 kms. The vehicle was inspected by the workshop of OP No.2 and it was observed that there is no abnormality in the vehicle. The customer was duly communicated and educated that the vibration in the vehicle only occurs during sudden and aggressive clutch shifting in the vehicle. This is a normal functional phenomenon due to aggressive shifting of clutch and driving conditions. However, for the satisfaction of the complainant, clutch set was replaced on free of cost basis under warranty even when the clutch is not covered under warranty as per Clause 4(2). The amount of Rs. 115/- was charged for the clip which could not have been covered under warranty. It is submitted that the road test was conducted with the complainant and no abnormality was observed in the vehicle. The vehicle was again sent to the workshop on 24.10.2020 for the alleged concern of engine vibration. The vehicle was again inspected and basis the inspection it was decided to replace the flywheel of the vehicle. But the part was not available and the customer was informed that the part will be replaced in next visit. The customer was informed about the part and vehicle was sent to the workshop on 30.10.2020. No road test was conducted on 24.10.2020 as alleged. When the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 30.10.2020, the flywheel of the vehicle was replaced on free of cost basis under warranty. The vehicle was again road tested and no abnormality was observed. These material facts have been concealed by the complainant. The vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP No.2 on 05.11.2020 and only vehicle wobbling was reported as demanded repairs. No problem of engine vibration was reported by the complainant in this visit. The vehicle was inspected and no abnormality was observed w.r.t. wobbling in the vehicle. The customer was again educated about the fact that the vibration in the vehicle only occurs during sudden and aggressive clutch shifting in the vehicle. This is a normal functional phenomenon due to aggressive shifting of clutch and driving conditions. Mere reporting of any concern/defect does not substantiate the existence of the same. The complainant has assumed manufacturing defect in the vehicle without any basis or expertise to comment on the same. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.            Learned counsel for the OP No.2 made a statement that on 15.09.2021 written version filed on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3 be treated as written version on behalf of OP No.2 also. 
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-23 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.  Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 3 gave statement to the effect that written version filed on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3 be treated as evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that expert report dated 02.09.2022 furnished by the Mechanical Engineering Department Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh be treated as evidence on behalf of OP No.2 as Annexure OP-2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of  OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was on account of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question that the engine of the said vehicle was giving noise but inspite of repair, the OPs failed to rectify the defect. It was incumbent upon the OPs either to replace the defective vehicle or refund the amount paid by the complainant. However, by not doing so, the OPs have committed to deficiency in providing service.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3 while reiterating the objections raised in their written version submitted that the mere fact that the vehicle in question was taken to the workshop for running repairs or minor defects, which were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant, cannot be termed as manufacturing defect therein.
9.           Learned counsel for the OP No.2 adopted the arguments made by learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 3.
10.           The question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or not. It is significant to mention here that during pendency of this complaint, on the application having been moved by the complainant, which was allowed by this Commission, the case was sent to the Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department, PEC, Chandigarh, to constitute a panel of experts for inspection/examination of the vehicle. Consequently, the penal of experts vide report dated 02.09.2022, opined that after going through the material available on record and inspection, they are of the opinion that at present the vehicle in question is not having the said problem.  Relevant part of this report is copied below:-

“…Subject: Expert opinion in Misc. Application 15.09.2022 in CC No. 21 of 2021 titled as Deepak Singla Versus The Director, Maruti Suzuki and others- regarding.

In Reference to Memo no. PEC/MED/2322-2326 dated 08.08.2022 on the subject cited above the vehicle in question was brought before the committee for inspection on 25.08.2022 at 10.30 AM in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the Institute by Sh. Deepak Singla (Complainant), Sh. Hemant Pal, Ekansh wheel (WM) and Sh. Ravjit Singh, MSL-TSM, were present during the inspection and test drive.

The vehicle having registration ne. HR54E3733, Engine No. K12MN3346504, Chassis No. MA3CZF63SKD519631 was presented for inspection. The vehicle in question was inspected and test-driven for 35 km.

After going through the material available on record and inspection, the committee is of the opinion that at present the vehicle in question is not having the said problem.

           A bare perusal of the contents of report dated 02.09.2022 clearly established that the vehicle in question is not suffering from any problem. In view of the expert report dated 02.09.2022, we do not hesitate to conclude that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. As such, the prayer made by the complainant for issuance of directions to the OPs to pay/refund the amount of Rs.7,54,000/-, i.e the cost of the vehicle in question is not tenable. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 16.08.2024