BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member President (FAC)
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday the 24h day of June, 2013
C.C.No.23/2012
Between:
R.Sivasankaran,
S/o N.Rajagopalan,
H.No.87/415,
Sri Lakshmi Nagar,
Kurnool – 518 002. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The General Manager,
M/s Maruthi Sujuki India Private Limited,
Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070.
2. The Manager,
M/s Maruthi Sujuki India Private Limited,
D.No.101 & 102, First Floor,
Mahavir Chambers,
Liberty Squire Stanza,
Himayath Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500 029.
3. M/s M.S.A. Motors,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Shop No.1,
Abdullakhan Estate,
Kurnool – 518 001. ...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.A.Anil Kumar, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Sri.Syed Shafaqath Hussain, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member C.C. No.23/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay the price of the Zen Car with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of incident i.e., 13-02-2010 to till the date of realization;
(OR)
To Replace the another New Zen Car Similar description;
- To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the ZEN LX Car bearing No.KL 11 J 702. The complainant given his car to opposite party No.3 for serving Vide Job Card No.JC 09004009 dated 12-02-2010. There was a fire incident occurred on 13-02-2010 in the premises of M/S M.S.A. Motor Service Centre, Kurnool. The complainant car was also involved in the fire incident and got damaged. Opposite party No.3 has given assurance that the car would be repaired and returned it within fifteen days, the opposite party No.3 coerced the complainant to take delivery of vehicle on 05-04-2010 and issue a Job Card Cash Memo No.BC 10000071 dated 05-04-2010. The opposite parties had not properly repaired the car and handed over it without completing the Jobs in all aspects. The complainant reported the same against to opposite party No.3 on 06-04-2010 by Fax Letter to opposite party No.1 for their kind consideration. In response to that letter opposite party No.2 was instructed by opposite party No.1 to resolve the problems in the said car. As there was no response from opposite party No.2, the complainant lodged complaints on two times through “Any time Maruthy”. There was no response, once again he registered a complaint. The complainant received information that the earlier complaint was closed/resolved. The complainant sent a communication to CRM M/s Maruthi Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. There was no reply from him. Due to the negligent act of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer to opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant entered an independent contract with opposite party No.3 for obtaining alleged repairs on 12-02-2010. The warranty obligation of the said opposite parties had concluded long back on 20-04-2000. As per the clause 5 of the Dealership Agreement executed between the opposite parties, “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”. The relationship between the Manufacturer with its dealers is of Principal to Principal basis, and is not liable for the acts of its dealers. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite parties 1 and 2.
Opposite party No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant had given his car bearing No.KL 11 J 702 to opposite party No.3 for repair vide Job Card No.JC 09004009 dated 12-02-2010. During the repair work while the fuse was being checked, as there was damage in wiring harness, the wring harness was burnt due to short circuit. This fire accident was an account of the defect in his vehicle, the complainant was informed about it, the opposite party No.3 replace the wiring harness free of cost and it was done immediately. But the complainant did not come to take the delivery of the vehicle inspite of repeated oral reminders to him. On 05-04-2010 he paid cost of repairs and took delivery of vehicle after satisfying himself with the work done, by executing satisfaction note in his own hand writing. The opposite party No.3 not aware about the correspondence between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2. Again on 14-09-2011 the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of opposite party No.3 for repairs with a complaint of starting problem and breakdown. The repairs were carried out he paid Rs.4,050/- towards the cost of repairs and took delivery on 28-10-2011. The opposite party No.3 has carried out the Job that was entrusted to it. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.3.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A9 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B8 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 to 3 and third party sworn affidavit of Sri.Shaik Zubair is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the Car bearing No.KL 11 J 702 and the said car was given to opposite party No.3 for servicing vide Job Card No.JC 09004009 dated 12-02-2010, which is marked as Ex.B1. It is the case of the complainant that there was a fire accident occurred on 13-02-2010 in the premises of M/S.M.S.A. Motors Service Centre, Kurnool, and the complainant car was also involved in the fire accident and got damaged. The opposite party No.3 handed over the vehicle to the complainant without completing the jobs or service in all aspects and with poor quality of work. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.2,387/- towards the cost of repairs. It is marked as Ex.A1 dated 05-04-2010. He was compelled to give a satisfactory report, which is marked as Ex.B6 dated 05-04-2010. the complainant repeatedly registered complaints against opposite party No.3 as opposite party No.3 was deficient in his services to opposite party No.1 under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 through any time Maruthi, in order to get their assistance to resolve the issue, opposite party No.1 sent a communication under Ex.A5 dated 13-04-2010 that the opposite party No.2 was being instructed to resolve the problem in complainant’s car. But there was no response from opposite party No.2. The complainant again registered a complaint under Ex.A4 dated 29-04-2010. The complainant received information that the complaint was closed/resolved. The complainant sent a communication CRM/M/s Maruthi Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi, there was no reply from him. The opposite parties did not taken any steps in this regard. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the fire accident occurred while the vehicle is under the custody of the opposite party No.3. The opposite parties compelled the complainant to obtain the signature on satisfaction memo without doing work properly is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
8. It is case of opposite parties 1 and 2 that the complainant is said to have entered into an independent contract with opposite party No.3 for alleged repairs on 12-02-2010, opposite parties 1 and 2 are not responsible for the deficient service of opposite party No.3. As per the clause 5 of the dealership agreement executed between the opposite parties “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”. The relationship between the Manufacturer with its dealers is of principal to principal basis and is not liable for the acts of its dealers. There is no cause of action against these opposite parties 1 and 2. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
9. It is the case of opposite party No.3 that the complaint brought his car for repairs and job card was issued under Ex.B1 dated 12-02-2010 the fire accident occurred on 13-02-2010 was due to defect in his vehicle. There was no fire accident in the workshop. The repairs were carried out and the complainant paid and took the delivery of vehicle after satisfying himself with the work done by opposite party No.3. The satisfaction note is marked as Ex.B6 dated 05-04-2010. The complainant did not came to the workshop of opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 not aware of the correspondence between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2, as the complaints had been made to opposite parties 1 and 2. The territory Manger Service Personally came to Kurnool on 13-07-2011 and informed the complainant to send his vehicle to opposite party No.3 workshop. The complainant did not send it to workshop. Again on 14-09-2011, he brought his vehicle to the workshop of opposite parties for repairs. The Job Card was issued dated 14-09-2011, which is marked as Ex.B4=Ex.A7. The repairs were carried out and delivered it on 28-10-2011 and he paid Rs.4,050/- towards the cost of repairs. It is marked as Ex.B5 = Ex.A9. The photos and CD is marked as Ex.B7. The photo copy of vehicle history is marked as Ex.B8. Opposite party No.3 carried out the repairs that was entrusted to it. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3.
Admittedly the said vehicle was delivered on 05-04-2010. As seen from Ex.A2 dated 06-04-2010 it is very clear that on the very next day of delivery of vehicle, the complainant lodged a complaint to opposite party No.1 against opposite party No.3 for deficiency of service on his part and he was compelled to take delivery without completing the repairs in all aspects, and he was asked for satisfaction report (Ex.B6). The complainant repeatedly lodged complaints against opposite party No.3 to opposite party under Ex.A2 to Ex.A6, it clearly shows that the complainant was not satisfied with the work done by opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 filed an affidavit of his Manager Shik Zubair to support his version, but without any credible or supportive evidence the affidavit of his Manager his not taken into consideration. It is admitted that the fire accident took place on 13-02-2010, the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. The opposite party No.3 contended that it was occurred due to the damage in wiring harness of the complainant vehicle, as his vehicle was got repaired in local garage prior to the incident, but the above said fact was not proved by opposite party No.3 by filing any evidence. So it is clear that the fire accident occurred due to the negligent act of opposite party No.3, and the vehicle was damage, while it was in the custody of opposite party No.3. There is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.3. Hence opposite party No.3 liable to pay compensation. The complainant entered an independent contract with opposite party No.3 for obtaining alleged repairs on 12-02-2010. The warranty obligation of the said opposite parties 1 and 2 had concluded long back on 20-04-2000. As per clause 5 of dealership Agreement between the opposite parties. The manufacturer is not liable for the deficient act of dealers. The complainant made complaint against opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 sent a area Manager to inspect the said vehicle. As the complainant is not available on that day, he could not inspect the vehicle and return to Delhi. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.
10. Point No.iii:- The complainant claim Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony is excessive and further for replacement of Car or Return of price amount of the car is not reasonable. The complainant used the said car for about 10 years. It is an Old Model of 1999, and warranty period was also ended. The complainant not filed any document to assess the damages cause to the vehicle due to fire accident. Taking into consideration all the material on record, we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.3 is directed to replace the parts in the vehicle which are damaged in fire accident with free of cost or to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant so as to get it repair, and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the case.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party No.3 to replace the parts in the said vehicle, which are damaged in the fire accident or to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the case. The complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 are dismissed. Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24th day of June, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Job Card Retail Cash Memo dated 05-04-2010
issued by M.S.A. Motors Kurnool.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of letter of complainant to Matuthi Sujuki
Limited New Delhi dated 06-04-2010.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of letter of complainant to Matuthi Sujuki
Limited, General Manager, New Delhi dated 28-04-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of letter of complainant to Matuthi Sujuki
Limited, New Delhi dated 29-04-2010 along with photo copy
of postal receipts.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter of Matuthi Sujuki Limited to
complainant dated 13-04-2010.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Reply letter of complainant to Matuthi Sujuki
Limited dated 20-07-2011.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Job Slip sum demand repair explanation sheet
dated 14-09-2011 issued by MSA Motors, Kurnool.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Cash Bill for Rs.5,000/- issued by Mehboob
Auto Garage dated 03-05-2011.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of Job Card Retail Cash Memo dated 28-10-2011
issued by M.S.A. Motors Kurnool.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Job Card issued by MSA Motors dated 12-02-2010.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Job Card issued by M.S.A. Motors
dated 14-09-2011.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Check Up
Ex.B4 Job Card issued by M.S.A. Motors dated 14-09-2011
along with Job Card Retail Cash Memo.
Ex.B5 Job Card Retail Cash Memo dated 28-10-2011 issued by
M.S.A. Motors, Kurnool.
Ex.B6 Satisfaction Note dated 05-04-2010.
Ex.B7 Photos (Nos.12) along with CD.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Vehicle History.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
