Date of filing : 06.12.2018
Date of order : 27.09.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
TUESDAY THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 29/2018
N. Mahidar Reddy,
S/o. Narasimha Reddy,
Door No. 296, Old Road Street,
Brammapuram,
Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District, Tamil Nadu. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The General Manager,
Ganesh Cars Pvt Ltd., (NEXA),
Perumugai – 2S (NEXA),
No. 96/6, NBH 40, Chennai – Bangalore Highway,
Vellore, Vellore District
Tamil Nadu.
2. The Dealer Maruthi (NEXA),
Ganesh Cars Pvt Ltd., (NEXA),
Perumugai – 2S (NEXA),
No. 96/6, NH 40, Chennai – Bangalore Highway,
Vellore, Vellore District,
Tamil Nadu.
3. The Complaint Officer (NEXA Cars),
No. 69, Samayapuram Main Road,
Gothandaraman Nagar,
Karambakkam, Samayapuram Nagar,
Porur, Chennai – 600 016.
4. The Complaints Officer,
NEXA Cars – Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.,
Nelson Mandala Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi 110 070. …Opposite parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru.K.Sathish
Counsel for first and second opposite parties : Thiru.G.Krishnamurthy
Third Opposite parties : Set exparte on 28.05.2019
Fourth opposite parties : Set exparte on 28.07.2022
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed Under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed to this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to took back the defective car replace the same with a Brand new Maruthi Nexa S-Cross Car, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages towards the repair cost expenditures incurred during the past six months and the opposite parties jointly to give Rs.15,00,000/- for the mental agony and torture caused to the complainant and the total calculated to be paid along with interest at the rate of 14.5% per annum which is the interest rate charge by the opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of costs.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant bought a new Maruti S- Cross car bearing engine no. D13A-515877, Chassis No. MA3FNEB1S0018710 from first opposite party the dealer of Maruti Cars in Vellore and second opposite party who is the seller of Maruti Nexa model cars on he bought the car by obtaining car loan for Rs.12 Lakhs including the accessories. The car was registered bearing registration No. TN-23-CK-1380. The complainant further submits that while taking the delivery of the car, he noticed a huge gap between the front fender on the driver side door of the car. When he enquired the sales representative working in the second opposite party’s showroom, they replied that it is not an defect and it is the original model of the car, and there is no need to worry about it. As the complainant did not know much about the car, he believed the sales representative and took delivery of the car and registered it in his name. In the first week of May 2018, while driving the said car in the rain. The complainant found that the rain water directly coming inside the car through the gap in between the front fender and the door on the driver seat side. He was shocked and he immediately rushed to the Maruti showroom authorised service centre. The authorized mechanic of the Maruti Nexa cars inspected the said vehicle and found that there is a big gap between the front fender, driver side door and informed the complainant about the same. He further also informed that the car wasn’t a new one but was a repainted and shoed the painting peeling of the driver side door. He was shocked to hear such facts, from the Mechanic and hence immediately he rushed to the first and second opposite parties Show Room. He also enquired the first and second opposite parties over phone, the General Manager of the showroom by name Subhaiyya accepted the fault that the car was sold out to the complainant by hiding the true fact and the entire part of the driver side car was tinkered and repainted and the damages was suppressed and sold out to the complainant that the first and second opposite parties will give offer/rewards the complainant that they will undertake “Free Service for Five Years” including minor defects. The complainant recorded the above conversation in his phone. Hence, the complainant came to know that the first and second opposite parties not sold a Brand New Model car and they delivered a old car. The complainant shocked to hear such facts from a Maruthi Authorised Showroom run by the first and second opposite parties. The entire audio and video conversation of the complainant and the said Subhaiyya was recorded by the complainant in his phone. Hence, this complaint.
2. Written version of the first and second opposite parties are as follows:
The opposite party denies the allegations made in para 3 of the petition. The allegation that the complainant is a business man doing business in Andhra Pradesh and TamilNadu and now residing in the above mentioned address are all not known to his opposite party and the same is unnecessary one and the complainant alone is put to strict proof of the same. But on the other hand it is true that this opposite party’s is a dealer of Maruti Cars in Vellore and the second opposite party is the seller of Maruti Nexa Model cars and it is also true that the third opposite party is the Tamilnadu dealer and the fourth opposite party is the manufacturers of Nexa cars. It is also true that the complainant purchased a new Maruti S-Cross car in the showroom owned and managed by first and second opposite parties and the first and second opposite parties are the authorised dealers and sellers of various type of Maruti Cars in Vellore District. It is true that the complainant purchased a new Maruti S-Cross car bearing engine No.D13A-515877, Chassis No. MA3FNEB1S0018710 by obtaining car loan from the Bank of India, Katpadi branch for Rs.12,00,000/- including the accessories and later on the said car was registered bearing Registration No. TN 23 CK 1380, the payment receipts, copy of RC book vehicle Tax invoice, SBI insurance receipt and other documents are all filed for the perusal of this Hon’ble commission are all not necessary to this opposite party. Since, it is the duty of the complainant to produce the same before this Hon’ble Commission. During the time of taking delivery of the car, he noticed a huge gap between the front fender i.e., driver side door of the car when he required the sale representatives working in the second opposite party showroom, they replied that it is not an defect and it is the original model of the car and there is no need to worry about the same, due to lack of awareness about the cars and since, the car is a new model, nobody is available on the date to guide the complainant, the complainant took delivery of the car and got registered in his name are all not correct and the same are invented only for the purpose of this case. The complainant taken this issue before this opposite party only after a year used his car the complainant is come forward with his new complaint and this issue is belated one and the car is using after one year usage and therefore this opposite party is not highly responsible for this charge, alleged by the complainant. So there was no such a water leak complaint in last one year as per the record and also the paint issue which is using after one year usage. The above mistake was done by the side of the complainant alone and not on the side of this opposite party. As per the warranty policy and in good will closure accepted this opposite party to undertake to painting work alone and not for accepted anything mentioned by the General manager NEXA Cars at Vellore. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are all utter false and imagination and the complainant alone put to strict proof of the same before this Hon’ble Commission. The opposite party delivered a brand new car alone to the complainant and not sold a old car to the complainant. Therefore, this opposite party under takes to accepted only for the painting work and not for others. They were offer giving as in good will only not for any compensation, Therefore, all the mistakes has done by the complainant only and not on the side of this opposite party and second opposite party. The opposite parties took all the responsibility and clearly answered to the complainant and also they were not given any assurance to offering free service for 5 years and this the opposite parties given offers only on good will and not for any compensation. All the acts done by the complainant alone and after taken the delivery of a Brand New Car and utilized the same for one year and after laps of one year, he come forward with his oral complaint and thereafter he filed this vexatious petition before this Hon’ble Commission for reliefs with prayed in his petition and this opposite parties are not liable to pay any damages or any compensation to the complainant with cost. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. On receipt of this notice from this Hon’ble Commission. Third and fourth opposite parties did not appear, several opportunities given, the opposite parties called absent set exparte.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Documents 1 to 8 filed. Proof affidavit of first opposite party filed. Proof affidavit of second opposite party not filed. Documents not filed. Written argument of complainant not filed. Written argument of first and second opposite parties filed.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS.1&2: The complainant had purchased a new Maruti S Cross car by obtaining car loan for Rs.12,00,000/- including accessories. The engine no of this car is D13A-515877, Chassis No. MA3FMEBI50018710. The car was registered bearing Reg No. TN-23-CK-1380. The payment receipt, copy of RC Book, Vehicle Tax Invoice, Insurance receipt and other docs are filed. The complainant submits that during the time of taking delivery of the said vehicle, he noticed a huge gap between the front fender is on the driver side door. But the sales representative working in the second opposite party’s showroom said that it is not a defect and it is the original design of the car and not to worry about it. The believing the works of this person, the complainant took delivery of the said vehicle. But in few months while driving the said car in the rain, he found that the rain water entering the car directly from the gap between the front fender and the door on the driver seat side. The complainant shocked by seeing this, took the said car immediately to the Maruti Showroom Authorized service center nearby. The mechanic at the showroom after inspection informed that it is due to the huge gap between the front fender and the door. He further clarified that it was a defect in the car and not a design. Further he also informed that the painting on the driver side of the car was not a new one and that it was repainted one, and even showed the peeling out of the paint. The complainant was shocked to hear these facts immediately rushed to first and second opposite party showroom, where the general manager accepted the fault and offered “Free Service for Five year”. The same has been rewarded and produced to this honorable commission. Thus we find that there is a manufacturing feet in the car, which has been knowingly pressed by first and second opposite party and the defective car was sold to the complainant. The complainant had issued a legal notice to all the opposite parties on 12.01.2018 calling them to take back the defective car and to return the entire amount paid by the complainant or to give a new car. The first and second and fourth opposite party’s received the notice and acknowledged the same. The third opposite party did not receive the notice and the same was returned. The complainant was dragged by the opposite party’s unnecessarily and this caused mental stress and agony to him. We also conclude that the first and second opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice and that there has been deficiency of service to the complainant.
The commission directs the:
The first and second opposite party is the dealer of the said vehicle and third or fourth opposite parties are manufacturer of the car. The specific allegation is that during rainy season, the water is coming into the cabin of the driver. As a result the pedestal of accelerator, break and the clutch could not be operated as its wet and there is a possibility of accident. In view of the standardization the water should not get into the car, but in the subject matter of the car, the water has enter into the car. The complainant made several complaints with the opposite party’s. The allegation of the complainant is that the car has inherent manufacturing defect, therefore the water entered into the car. In the present case, the first and second opposite parties are only dealer. And the relationship between the dealer and manufacturer is Principal to Principal. The manufacturer alone is responsible for defect in the car. The present case, the third and fourth opposite parties did not appear and did not file written version. Therefore this forum has no other option except accept the contention of the complainant. Therefore we find that the reason for water go into the car only because of manufacturing defect. Hence, there is a deficiency in service in the part of Third and Fourth Opposite parties 3 & 4. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No.3: As we have decided in Point Nos. 1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the third and fourth opposite parties. The Third and fourth opposite parties are jointly or severally hereby directed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) the cost of vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No. 3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The Third and Fourth opposite parties are jointly or severally hereby directed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) the cost of vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against the first and second opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAIANNT SIDE DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDES DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
