DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the  16^th day of July  2016

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member 

               : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member              Date of filing: 23/06/2014

                                                      (C.C.No.89/2014)         

C.M.Santha                                                  -        Complainant

W/o.M.S.Skaria,

Retd.Teacher,

15/750, Kunnathurmedu Post,
Palakkad – 678 013

(By Adv.Surya.M.R.) 

Vs

1.The Manager,

   Indus Motor Co Pvt.Ltd.

   Vadakkumuri, Kannadi, Palakkad

2.The Chairman,

   Indus Motor Co.Pvt.Ltd.

   Indus House, Chakorathukulam, Calicut

   (Registered Office)

(By Adv.P.K.Aboobacker)

3.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

   1, Nelson Mandela Road,

   Vasant Kumj,

   New Delhi – 110 070                                     -       Opposite parties

(By Adv.M.R.Manikandan) 

O R D E R 

By Shri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

Brief facts of case.  

The complainant, Santha.C.M., is a retired teacher. She owns a Maruthi Dezire Car bearing Registration No: KL9Y-1717. 1^st opposite party is a branch office of 2^nd opposite party in Palakkad. 3^rd opposite party are the manufacturers of the vehicle who have given authorization to 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party for servicing the vehicle. It was under that identity the complainant used to give her vehicle mentioned above for servicing to the 2^nd opposite party’s branch office in Palakkad.

A lady claiming to be from 1^st opposite party’s office telephoned the complainant and canvassed for servicing the vehicle. A staff from 1^st opposite party’s office came to the house of the complainant and took her vehicle above mentioned for servicing on 25/2/2014 for its 5,000 km service. At that time the complainant informed the service personnel about a shake and noise in the steering part of the vehicle. Apart from that there were no other complaints for the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 26/2/2014 at about 5 p.m. with a huge bill for Rs.11,389/- and satisfaction note for pick up and drop  dated 25/2/2014. According to the complainant the huge bill was beyond her expectation and reasoning. The car was delivered with black grease over the body and interior thereof. After servicing the interior of the car, the same looked dull and old. It was understood from the test ride after the delivery of the car that the work claimed to have been done by 1^st opposite party was worse and the complaint of the car was not cured. Moreover the steering was very tight after servicing. According to the complainant, the person who brought the car to her house was convinced that  the defect was not repaired. The staff of the 1^st opposite party who brought the car to her home after servicing  gave her  a satisfaction note  for “pick up and drop” bearing a previous date.  It was issued with an ulterior intention to prove to their higher authorities that their service was prompt and punctual, the complainant appeals.

A week before the delivery of the vehicle for service 1^st opposite party solicited the complainant and her family to take “indus  service package” saying that there would  be no labour charge for the subscribers of this package for service during the scheme period. On examining the service bill it was found that the major portion of the bill was towards labour charges. The complainant and her family members understood from reliable sources that the huge amount   bill was issued deliberately to induce the customers to take “package service scheme”  from 1^st opposite party and also to get an unlawful profit from the business. According to the complainant, 1^st opposite party’s service was highly deficient and amounted to unfair trade practice. When the same was complained to 1^st opposite party, they promised the complainant to clear the complaint without charging any service charge.  But till 28/6/2014 they did not approach the complainant  nor properly answered to her complaint. Since 1^st opposite party did not respond  to the claim of complainant  the latter was forced to approach another authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party namely  the “car craft Palakkad” and they repaired the sound and vibration and tight steering  of the vehicle  for which the complainant had to pay additional charge.  According to the complainant she had to pay additional charge due to 1^st opposite party’s deficient service and if 1^st opposite party had properly repaired the vehicle she would not have to incur additional service charge. The complainant adds that on enquiring with other customers who had given their vehicles  for servicing  to 1^st opposite party and other branches of 2^nd opposite party, it was understood that the service of the 1^st opposite party was poor or substandard. Further excess service charge was claimed by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant now understands that 1^st opposite party and other branches of 2^nd opposite party are in the habit of issuing excess bills without properly servicing the vehicles coming to them for repair. The complainant had to pay a huge amount for servicing her car to 2^nd opposite party’s branch. The complainant claims Rs.11,389/- being the amount claimed by the 1^st opposite party for servicing the car of the former along with interest @24% per annum and Rs.2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony caused to her and previous bills issued to the complainant.

The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to both parties.  

The opposite parties 1 & 2 in their version admitted the purchase by the complainant of a Maruthi Dezire Car from opposite parties on 30/12/2009 with registration No:KL9Y-1717 manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party and the repairs being done by opposite party No.1 and No.2’s  workshop.   From 2009 till 21/3/2014 the complainant had made 27 visits for servicing  and running repairs. The 1^st opposite party also admits the statement made in the complaint that the  vehicle was brought to 2^nd opposite party for service on 25/2/2014 for running repair.

The vehicle was brought after running repairs on 3/10/2013. The 1^st opposite party denied the statement of the complainant that there was only shake and noise in the steering part of the vehicle and the vehicle did not have any other complaint as incorrect.  The vehicle was brought with demanded repairs of noises from wheel bearing , steering, and front suspension. Job card for the said vehicle was issued on 25/2/2014. Since major works had to be done in the steering and front suspension, the engine of the vehicle was removed and refitted after the repairs. About 10 items of spare parts were replaced and for the said spare parts and labour charges, Rs.11,389/- was charged from the complainant. True copies of the job card and job slip  were marked as Ext.B1 & B2. The 1st opposite party also denied the statement as incorrect that the vehicle was delivered only on 26/2/2014 with a huge bill of Rs.11,389/-. Since major works had to be done in the steering and front suspension engine of the vehicle about 10 items of spare parts were replaced and for the said spare parts and labour charges, Rs.11,389/- was charged from the complainant, according to opposite party No.1.  The true copy of the bill produced was marked as Ext.A3. 1^st opposite party also denies as falls the statement in the complaint that the vehicle was delivered only on 26/2/2014, that satisfaction note  dated 25/2/2014 was obtained from the complainant, that the car was delivered with  black grease over the body and the interior of the car, that the interior of the car looked dull and old, that from the road test after delivery it was  found that the work done by the opposite parties were worse and the defects were not cured, that the steering was very tight, that the person who delivered the car was also convinced about the said defect and made only for the purpose of this case. The opposite parties delivered the vehicle after curing all the defects pointed out by the complainant. Again the statement in the complaint that one week before the service date of 25/2/2014 1^st opposite party told complainant and her family  members to take Indus service package saying that there would be no labour charge for the subscribers of the said package is not correct.  The vehicle of the complainant was taken for paid service and the opposite parties charged only normal charges. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. According to 1^st opposite party the statement in the complaint that when the complainant made a complaint regarding the charge  for servicing  the 1^st opposite party promised her that complaints will be rectified without charging any more service charge is false and the opposite parties had never given such a promise but attended to the work as a paid service with normal charges. Another statement in  the complaint that since the opposite parties never responded to the claim of the complainant  she was forced to contact another authorize service centre of 3^rd opposite party and she had to pay additional charges for their service only due to deficient service of 1^st opposite party are false and made only for the purpose of the case. The said service was found to be done on 21/3/2014. Opposite parties are unaware of the cause of the complaint pointed out by the complainant because repair works of a vehicle will depend upon various factors including the nature of usage of the vehicle. It is to be noted that the vehicle is 2009 model vehicle, contented by 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party also denies as false complainant’s allegation in the complaint that on enquiry with other customers the complainant came to know that the service offered by 1^st opposite party is substandard and 1^st opposite party is in the habit of charging huge bills and now the complainant understands that the 1^st opposite party and other branches of 2^nd opposite party charged excess bills from the complainant on previous occasions. According to 1^st opposite party these allegations were made for the purpose of this case and are not maintainable in law. Opposite parties are doing good service to the complainant with normal bills and that the complainant was servicing her vehicle with opposite parties 1 & 2 for the last 5 years and no complaint was there at any stage.

Hence, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the service charges as per the service bill dated 25/2/2014 marked as Ext.A1 with or without interest and for any compensation because according to opposite party No.1 no mental agony or loss was caused to the complainant as claimed in para 9 of her complaint.  Also there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and no unfair trade practice was committed by them and hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or reimbursement from opposite parties. According to opposite parties since the complaint is filed experimentally no cause of action arises against opposite parties.

On the above grounds the opposite parties 1 & 2 contend that the complaint against them be dismissed with exemparary costs to the opposite parties because the same is devoid of any merits.

According to 3^rd opposite party they are manufacturers producing Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles under the control and supervision of an automobile giant namely Suzuki Motor Corporation Japan. They state that the vehicle manufactured  by the 3^rd opposite party undergo strict quality check at all levels of production and 3^rd opposite party has ISO certification for maintaining international manufacturing standards. The present complaint is bad for        misjoinder of parties. 3^rd opposite party is neither necessary nor a proforma party to the complaint. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are independent entities and only render warranty services as per clause 3 on behalf of 3^rd opposite party. The present case is false outside the purview of warranty services. The complainant did not disclose any cause of action in her complaint against 3^rd opposite party. The complainant has impleaded 3^rd opposite party with an ulterior motive to cause wrongful loss and to obtain undue gain and hence the complaint should be dismissed against opposite party No.3.

From the side of the complainant Ext.A1 to A4 were marked, with Ext.A2 being marked with objection. Ext.A5 series (2 nos) were also marked through witness.  Complainant filed  IA 147/16 to reopen evidence and subsequently allowed. Complainant also filed chief affidavit and additional affidavit and batha memo.  On behalf of the complainant  Manager of  “Car Craft Palakkad”  which is another service centre of 3^rd opposite party was examined as a witness and marked as PW1.   

From the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit, written statement, written objection, vakalath were filed. 

The following issues arise in this case

1.Whether there is negligence  /  or deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

2.If so what is the remedy?

In this case the complainant purchased a Maruti Dezire Car from Opposite parties 1 & 2 on 31/12/2009 with registeration No.KL9Y-1717 manufactured by 3^rd opposite party and repairs being done in opposite party 1 & 2 workshop. From 2009 till 21/3/2014 the complainant had made 27 visits for servicing and running repairs. On 25/2/2014 the vehicle was brought to opposite party No.2 for running repair. The vehicle was brought after running repairs on 3/10/2013 on the basis of canvassing for servicing the vehicles made by a lady belonging to the office of the 1^st opposite party. The complainant pleads that she has  allowed her vehicle to be taken for servicing by a staff of opposite party no.1. At that time she is said to have told the service personnel of 1^st opposite party about a shake and a noise in the steering part of the vehicle and the vehicle has no other complaints apart from that.

The vehicle was delivered on 26/2/2014 at around 5 pm with a huge bill for an amount of Rs.11,389/-. But it is observed that the date of returning the vehicle after servicing mentioned by the complainant  and 1^st opposite party in their affidavits is not correct. As per the complainant proof affidavit on 25/2/2014 the vehicle was given for repairs  and  only on 26/2/2014   it was recorded as returned as observed by the Forum how is it possible ?  Similarly as per the proof affidavit filed by 1^st opposite party it is mentioned that the vehicle brought for service on 25/2/2014 for running repairs was brought after running repairs on 3/10/2013. Here also the Forum observes that how is it possible?  1^st opposite party disagree with the complainant on the nature of the complaint of the vehicle given for service. According to the complainant the vehicle given for service had no other complaints except a shake and a noise in the steering part of the vehicle. But according to 1^st opposite party the vehicle was brought with demanded repairs of noises from wheel bearing steering and front suspension vide Ext.A1. Major works had to be done in the steering and front suspension of the engine of the vehicle. About 10 items of the spare parts were replaced and for the said parts and labour charges, according to 1^st opposite party Rs.11,389/- was charged from the complainant. Since the bills are given for the service charge of Rs.11,389/- vide Ext.A1 for purchase of 10 spare parts and 19 nos. labour charges we observe that the service charge charged by 1^st opposite party for servicing the vehicle is not excessive. Further there is no evidence from the proof affidavit of the complainant regarding whether she has subscribed for "Indus service package” or not. Hence her claim for refunding Rs.11,389/- being excessive charge by opposite parties cannot be fully allowed by us. But at the same time there is no proof of information given by opposite party 1 & 2 to the complainant that the vehicle accepted for repairs suffered from other problems also besides the problems mentioned to the 1^st opposite party’s staff at the time of taking the vehicle for service from the complainant on 25/2/2014. Hence we find that opposite parties 1 & 2 are negligent  and for their negligence the complainant should be compensated. Further 1^st opposite party was seen to have given the complainant a prior dated satisfaction note for “pick up and drop” . To this,     this Forum observes “how is it possible ?”. Hence it is evident that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice for which also the opposite parties are liable. Being an existing customer with her complaint not being properly addressed and being dissatisfied, we observe that she has to avail of the services of another authorized service centre of 3^rd opposite party namely “Car Craft Palakkad” for repairing the sound and vibration and the tightened steering. Hence we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite  party No.1 and 2. The fact that the complainant was a dissatisfied customer of opposite parties 1 & 2 is also clear from the deposition of witness marked as PW1.  Since 3^rd opposite party is involved in manufacturing vehicles and not in servicing and no manufacturing defects were reported by the complainant against 3^rd opposite party, 3^rd opposite party is  exonerated in this dispute / case.    

Hence the complaint against 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is partly allowed and complaint against 3^rd opposite party is dismissed. 

We order that opposite party 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant service charge incurred by the complainant for servicing her  vehicle in the “Car Craft Palakkad” Rs.13,942/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand nine hundred and forty two only) for deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 & 2, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only)  towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only)  by way of litigation charges.  

Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th  day of July 2016.

                                                                                             Sd/-

                      Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                           Sd/-

                      Suma.K.P.

                      Member

                            Sd/-

      V.P.Anantha Narayanan                     Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1  –  Bill issued on 25/2/2014 by the 1^st opposite part (Photocopy)

Ext.A2  (marked with objection) - Indus Service Package Brochure alongwith

                                                     application form   

Ext.A3  - Invoice issued by Indus Motors Co.Pvt. dated 23/8/13 issued in the

              name of Ramadasan.  

Ext.A4 series  – Workshop bill register

Ext.A5series – Receipt dtd.21/03/2014 issued by Car Craft, Palakkad.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 - Ajith

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil  

 Cost 

 Rs.500/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.