BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.570 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          28.10.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            08.07.2016

Sandeep Singh son of Karam Singh resident of village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, P.O. Rampur Sainian, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     The Manager, Tricity Autos, Zirakpur-Patiala Highway, District SAS Nagar.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K.Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri Salil Sabhlok, counsel for OP No.2.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    replace the defective vehicle of the complainant.

(b)    pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards financial loss.

(c)    to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment.

(d)    pay him Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The case of the complainant is that he purchased Maruti Swift Dzire car from OP No.1 after arranging loan from Reliance Capital Limited, Chandigarh in February, 2015. This vehicle was purchased by the complainant for running as taxi to earn his livelihood. The complainant got the vehicle insured with National Insurance Company Limited. The complainant went to the workshop of the OPs at Phase-2, Panchkula on 03.03.2015 for first free service after the vehicle had covered distance of 1000 Kms.  The second free service was got done by the complainant from OP No.1 on 04.04.2015 after completion of 5000 Kms by the vehicle.  The complainant attached his vehicle with Uber Taxi Service in April, 2015. Third free service of the vehicle was got done by the complainant from the workshop of the OPs at Panchkula on 18.05.2015 after completion of 10000 KMs of the vehicle. At the time of third free service, some defective parts were replaced by the workshop for which the complainant paid Rs.2612/-. However, while plying the vehicle the complainant noticed leakage of Axle Seals which he got replaced from the workshop.  After completion of 20000 Kms the complainant noticed some defect in the back tyre of the vehicle. The complainant took the vehicle to the workshop of the OPs at Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh and during checking it was found that the axel seals of the vehicle were defective and two seals of the axel were leaking which were replaced.  The complainant visited Autopace Agency, Chandigarh for checking of back side right side tyre which was cracked and the complainant got repaired the same by paying Rs.700/- from his own pocket.   On 08.09.2015 after completion of 29502 KMs, there was defect in the axel of the vehicle and the complainant got it replaced from Autopace workshop, Panchkula by paying Rs.1700/-. On 11.09.2015 the complainant found some defect in the gear system and got it repaired, On 12.10.2015 the speedo meter of the vehicle became defective and took the vehicle to the workshop at Chandigarh and it was found that both axel seals leaked which were got repaired by him.  Thereafter, the complainant contacted Head Office of Maruti Company on 12.10.2015 but nothing has been done. The guarantee period of the vehicle is upto 40000 KMs which the vehicle has not covered till date. As such the vehicle is still within guarantee. The suspension system of the vehicle is also defective. As the complainant purchased the vehicle after taking loan and due to the aforesaid facts, he could not make proper use of the vehicle.    Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 

 2.            OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that there is no defect or deficiency in service on its part as it had only sold the vehicle to the complainant. At the time of making delivery, the vehicle was in perfect condition and was a brand new. The vehicle was got served by the complainant from OP No.1 only once and thereafter never approached for any service. There is no evidence that the vehicle has the problems as alleged by the complainant.  There is also no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  On merits, OP No.1 has taken the same stand as has been taken in the preliminary objections and thus,   sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that the complaint is without cause of action against it. It has fulfilled all the obligations under warranty and the liability of the OP No.2 being manufacture is limited. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was used by the complainant for commercial use and is outside the purview of warranty.  The vehicle was taken to the workshop for third free service on 18.05.2015 at a mileage of 10219 KMs instead of 10000 KMs in violation of warranty terms.  The charges were taken for engine oil top up, wheel alignment, wheel balancing, other oil top ups which were excluded from warranty.  The vehicle was extensively plied without proper care which is evident from the job card dated 10.08.2015 as the vehicle had been plied for more than 24000 KMs in just five and half months from the date of purchase. The vehicle was brought to the workshop on 10.08.2015 and the complainant wanted to get the wear and tear of the tyres checked. The officials of the workshop after inspection found the suspension of the vehicle as OK. Tyre pressure was low and one tyre was found to be cut and was replaced with the stepny. The complainant was advised to maintain proper air pressure in the tyres to reduce the excess wear and tear of tyres. The front drive shaft assembly was replaced free of cost under warranty.  There was no defect in the axle as alleged. On 08.09.2015 at a mileage of 29502 KMs it was observed that shaft assembly was damaged due to negligent driving and extensive use which was replaced on paid basis. The wheel alignment, wheel balancing and tyre rotation were carried out on paid basis which are excluded from warranty.  The complainant was given brand new defect free car and the complainant had taken delivery of the same after satisfying himself with the working of the car. Had there been any manufacturing defect in the tyres, then the same would not have covered such a huge mileage of more than 24000 KMs in just five and half months from the date of purchase.  On 10.09.2015 on the complaint of Gear Shift Hard, complete clutch overhaul was carried out free of cost under warranty. It was denied that the vacuum pump was found defective.  The speed sensor assembly and diff side oil left side and right side were replaced free of cost being under warranty.  The warranty was for two years or 40,000 KM whichever is earlier.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.2

4.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-16.

5.             Evidence of the OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Dhruv Garg, its MD Ex.OP-1/1.

6.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Vidur Gupta, TSM as Ex.OP-2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/3.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

8.             The sale and purchase of the vehicle in question under hire purchase agreement is not disputed. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question for self employment for earning his livelihood by running the vehicle as a taxi. After purchase of the vehicle from OP No.1, the OP No.1 being the authorised service centre has rendered after sale service besides the complainant has availed after sale services from other service centres of OP No.2. As per the complainant, the following is the history of services got effected by him from the service centres of the OPs:

9.             As per the complainant since the purchase of the vehicle in February, 2015 he has taken the vehicle on number of times to the service centres of the OP No.2 as the vacuum pump of the vehicle in question was defective, axle seals were found leaking and the OPs despite having tried to plug the leakage have failed to completely settle the problems and thus alleged that the OPs have sold him a defective vehicle. OPs on the other hand, took a categoric stand in their reply as well as on the basis of job sheets relied upon by the complainant that the complainant has been sold a defect free vehicle and the defects pointed out by the complainant are due to the damage caused to the vehicle due to negligent driving and extensive use and still the damaged parts being within the warranty have been replaced free of cost. The complainant wanted the tyres and tubes to be replaced which are excluded from the warranty as per Clause-4 (b) of the terms and conditions. Otherwise, there is no deficiency or defect on the part of the OPs as they have effectively rendered the after sale service as per terms of warranty policy.

10.           The issue involved in the complaint is whether the OPs have failed to render proper and effective after sale service to the complainant and whether the complainant has been sold defective vehicle.

11.           In order to satisfy the first question, it will be appropriate to go through the job history of the vehicle as relied upon by the complainant. The first free services from 03.03.2015 to 18.05.2015 when the vehicle has run upto 10,000 KMs, no defect has been pointed out or brought to the notice of the OPs by the complainant. In the 4^th paid service on 21.07.2015, when the vehicle has run 20423 KMs, the complainant has not pointed out any defect in the parts of the vehicle. The normal oil change, wheel balancing, wheel alignment etc. was done by the service centre vide Ex.C-9 and the complainant availed this as a paid service.

12.           For the first time when the vehicle had run 24148 KMs on 10.08.2015, the complainant vide job sheet Ex.C-16 pointed out about the tyres problems as well as shaft assembly issue. The OPs declined the replacement of tyres being falling in the exclusion clause of the warranty whereas the shaft assembly was replaced free of cost and this fact has not been denied by the complainant.  Second time again when the vehicle has run 29502 KMs the complainant vide job sheet dated 08.09.2015 Ex.C-10/C-12 pointed out about the damage of shaft assembly and the same was replaced on paid basis. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show the damaged shaft assembly is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle in question. On the other hand as per para No.10 of its reply OP No.2 the shaft assembly was found damaged due to negligent driving and extensive use of the vehicle in question. The mileage shown at the time of such service was 29502 KMs as on 08.09.2015 whereas the vehicle in question has been purchased in February, 2015. Thus within 7 months the vehicle has run 29502 KMs which clearly shows that it was an extensive use for a vehicle of  1248 CC. As per warranty policy Ex.OP-2/3, the terms of warranty shall be 24 months of 40,000 KMs whichever occurs first. As per terms of the policy the vehicle should have run 20,000 KMs in one year whereas in 7 months it has run 29502 KMs that clearly shows that it is an extensive use of the vehicle in question and certainly would be subject to wear and tear.

13.           When the vehicle has run 29787 KMs the complainant on 10.09.2015 reported the problem of gear shift hard and the complete clutch over haul and the same were done by the OPs free of cost under warranty to remove the problems pointed out.  Further the speed sensor assembly and differential side oil, left side and right side were replaced free of cost being under warranty as is evident from Ex.C-13.  Thus, the perusal of all the job cards from Ex.C-2 to C-16 clearly show that as and when any problem pointed out by the complainant has come to the knowledge of the OPs, the same has been attended to as per terms of warranty and wherever the replacement of any part was required, the same has been done free of costs except the replacement of tyres and tubes which does not come under the terms of warranty being falling in exclusion clause 4 (b) of the terms of warranty.  The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in after sale service on the part of the OPs.

14.           There is no expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle on record and hence the complainant has failed to show the sale of defective vehicle to him by the OPs.

15.           In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

July 08, 2016.     

                          (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member