Complaint filed on: 23.04.2015
Complaint Disposed on:06.05.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.80/2015
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MAY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri.Jacob Kurian S/o K.A. Kurian,
Aged about 47 years, Manager,
Chamundi Curing Works,
Market Road, Chikmagalur City.
(By Sri/Smt. V.T. Thomas, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Manager,
Bharath Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd.,
Authorized dealer/service provider
of Maruti Car, NH-66, Kuntikan
Junction, Mangalore-575004.
2. The Manager,
Mandovi Motors,
Authorized dealer/service provider
of Maruti car, Hunsur Road,
Hinkal Post, Mysore.
3. The Manager,
Shruthi Motors,
Authorized dealer/service provider
of Maruti Car, AIT circle,
Chikmagalur.
4. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Plot no.1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110070.
(OP No.1 By Sri/Smt. G.Balakrishna, Advocate)
(OP No.4 By Sri/Smt.B.R. Jagadeesh., Advocate)
(OP No.2 & 3 - Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 to 4 alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective car to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op no.1 to 4 to replace the Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV with a new one or in alternative to refund an amount which was paid towards purchase of the vehicle with interest @ 18% from the date of purchase along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has purchased Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV on 04.03.2015 from Op no.1 by paying Rs.6,99,107/-. After payment of the said amount complainant also paid another Rs.7,203/- to Op no.1 through cheque drawn on Federal Bank, Chikmagalur. After purchase of the vehicle complainant went to Op no.1 for delivery of the vehicle, for which the manager of Op no.1 informed that the car has some defect in combination switch which has to be changed. After discussion Op no.1 asked the complainant to take the vehicle and come after one week to fetch the combination switch and invoice. Believing the words of the Op no.1 complainant took the delivery of the vehicle.
On 17.03.2015 he went to Mangalore to rectify the faulty combination switch, for which the said combination switch was replaced and first service was provided by Op no.1
On 22.03.2015 the complainant went to Mysore with his family, when he reached Mysore the gear of the vehicle not functioning and a strange loud sound was coming from the vehicle. The complainant tried to contact Op no.1 who did not respond to the call. Having no option the complainant contacted the authorized service centre at Mysore and took the vehicle for inspection, after checking the vehicle the said authorized service station have provided alternative vehicle to the complainant for his comfort. Thereafter on 30.03.2015 Op no.2 called the complainant and complainant went to Mysore, they told the complainant that the oil seal rupture and leakage of oil in the car, they changed all the gears, bearings and oil seal and show the damaged parts of the vehicle. Meanwhile the complainant complained the defects of the car to Maruti company over phone and also registered a complaint vide no.255080447. Further the mail also sent on 23.03.2015 to the Maruti company (Op no.4).
After taking the delivery of the car at Mysore, on 03.04.2015 complainant went to Bangalore for his urgent work, on the way the driver as well as the inmates of the car felt the car was not proper and there was a problem in pick up moments, there was no pick up even the engine was raising, when the driver applies the accelerator, the car was not moving more than 80 Kms speed. Anyhow the complainant with great difficulty reached Bangalore on the same day came back to Chikamagalur. Again on 04.04.2015 he called Op no.2 and Op no.3 with respect to the defects in the vehicle, for which they have suggested the complainant to approach Op no.1 at Chikmagalur and there the complainant came to know that there is still leakage in gear oil and engine got raising while applying accelerator. Again the complainant left the vehicle with Op no.1 on 07.04.2015 for repairs. After leaving the vehicle for repairs the Op no.1 had not handed over the vehicle after repairs. Due to which complainant suffered inconvenience. On 17.04.2015 one Mr.Vishwakumar, called the complainant that they have decided to replace the entire gear box and it will take another weeks time. Therefore it is cleared that there is a defect in the vehicle and the Op no.1 to 4 have sold a defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence, Op no.1 to 4 rendered unfair trade practice in selling a defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence, Prays for replacement of the said vehicle or in alternative to refund an amount paid towards the vehicle along with compensation for unfair trade practice as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op No.1 & 4 appeared through their counsel and filed version. Op No.2 & 3 placed exparte.
4. Op no.1 in his version has contended that the complainant has purchased Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV white car on 04.03.2015. But it is not true that they have demanded another Rs.7,203/- from the complainant, apart from the amount mentioned in the invoice. On 17.03.2015 the complainant came to this Op for first service after running 1,000 Kms, but it is not known to them that on 22.03.2015 the complainant went to Mysore with his family, where he tendered car for repair at Mandovi Motors (Op no.2).
Op further contended that there is a warranty given to the vehicle for only 24 months or up to 40,000Kms which ever is earlier from the date of delivery. This Op has provided first free service to the complainant and replacement of the materials and also provided free labour service. Again this Op received the car of the complainant in a break down condition which was towed up through driver of this Op and they have provided free service and repairs to the complainant car, during the repair the substitute car was provided to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of this Op. This Op provided all the facilities to the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op no.4 also filed version and contended that the complainant filed this false and frivolous complaint without any materials on record against this Op. There is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op in selling a Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV to the complainant. This Op is only responsible for providing warranty service during the warranty period i.e., up to 2 years or 40,000 Kms which ever is earlier, the said warranty is subject to terms and conditions set out in the owner’s manual. The complainant has alleges for replacement of the vehicle or to refund the price of the vehicle, which is beyond the purview of terms and conditions of the warranty. There is no cause of action arose against this Op.
The first Op after his first service has delivered the vehicle to the complainant with satisfaction of the complainant and there is no complaint at the time of first service, even there is no complaint with respect to the combination switch as alleged in the complaint. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after purchase with perfect OK condition.
Further the Op contended that the vehicle was checked and transmission of oil leakage was found and 200 ml transmission oil was top up free of cost upon the demand of the complainant under warranty. The vehicle was not repaired because the complainant stated that he will take the vehicle to Mandovi Motors at Mysore for the best reasons known to him. This Op has performed his obligations under warranty as specified in the warranty agreement. Further on 07.04.2015 the vehicle was sent to Bharath Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd., and the necessary repairs were done under warranty and Op told that the vehicle is ready and he can collected the vehicle, but the complainant has not collected the vehicle for the reasons best known to him, but the complainant had suppressing the material facts had filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. Now the vehicle is in good running condition and complainant without any complaints is using the vehicle. Hence, there is no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle which was sold to the complainant. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.10. Op 1 & 4 also filed their affidavits and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV white car from Op no.1 by paying Rs.6,99,107/- on 04.03.2015, but after purchase the complainant alleges that he noticed some problems in the vehicle, such as no pick up and loud sound was coming and gears of the vehicle were not functioning properly. For which he went to Op no.1 for first service and the Op no.1 was repaired the vehicle and delivered to the complainant. After delivery again the problems were continued and complainant repaired the vehicle by replacing the gear box and oil seal at Op no.2 service station. Even after said repairs also he found the vehicle is defective. Hence, complainant alleges unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant and prays for replacement of the vehicle or in alternative to refund the amount paid towards the vehicle.
11. On contrary Op no.1 and 4 have taken a contention that there was no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant at the time of first service has reported there is a problem in the gear box, for which after inspection they have replaced the engine oil and required services were provided. After that the complainant took the vehicle in a OK condition and now there is no problem in the vehicle and submits there is no unfair trade practice on the part of them in selling the said vehicle to the complainant.
12. During course of trial the learned advocate for complainant had argued that the vehicle is now in the good condition and Op no.1 to 4 have provided repair and service to the car, but Op no.1 to 4 have took long time to repair the vehicle, due to which complainant was not able to register the vehicle at RTO in stipulated time. The complainant constrained to pay fine of Rs.9,785/- at the time of registration of the vehicle. Hence, prays for payment of the said amount from Op no.1 to 4. The complainant has produced memo with receipts issued by RTO after registration, where we noticed that the complainant has purchased the car on 05.03.2015 and he tendered the vehicle for repairs in the month of April 2015. Afterwards he took the delivery of the vehicle, after complete repair from Ops in the month of April 2015 itself, whereas after taking the delivery the complainant got registered the vehicle at RTO office on 11.03.2016 after lapse of one year, for which the said authority have collected a fine from the complainant. The complainant has not explained the reason for delay in the registration of the vehicle after repair. We found Ops are not liable to pay any late fee paid by complainant to RTO office and we also found there is no manufacturing defect as alleged by complainant in the car. As such the complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice/deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1 to 4. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 6th day of May 2017).
(RAVISHANKAR)
President
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA)
Member Member
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex.P.1 - Proforma invoice dtd:2.3.15.
Ex.P.2 - Original demanded repairs & job slips.
Ex.P.3 - Original tax invoice dtd:31.03.2015.
Ex.P.4 - E-mail copy of the job card.
Ex.P.5 - Job card issued dtd:06.04.2015.
Ex.P.6 - 3 copies of complaint through E-mail sent to Maruti company.
Ex.P.7 - Another copy of the complaint through E-mail sent to Bharath
Motors.
Ex.P.8 - Copy of the enquiry through E-mail to the Bharath Motors.
Ex.P.9 - Original registration fee challen.
Ex.P.10 - Another original registration fee challan.
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex.R.1 - Authorization letter by Op no.1.
Ex.R.2 - Vehicle history sheet.
Ex.R.3 - Copy of E-mail sent by Op no.1 to the complainant
dtd:21.05.2015.
Dated:06.05.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
