D.O.F:27/01/2016
D.O.O:11/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.46/2016
Dated this, the 11th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mohammed Asharaf
S/o Soopi Kunhi Haji,
Bovikana House Kanathur Road, : Complainant
Muliyar Kasaragod Districts.
(Adv: Bharata Raj. A.K)
And
1. The Manager,
KVR Car Anangoor,
P.O Vidyanagar, Kasaragod
(Adv: Srikanta Shetty)
2. CEO Maruthi Udyog Limited : Opposite Parties
Maruthi Suzuki India Limited
Nelsan Mandela Road,
Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a Maruthi Swift Car on 04/03/2015. He was informed that it is free from all defects and promised prompt service. It is registered with No: KL – 14 – R – 1441. After running 1000Km, he noticed leakage in diesel fuel pump which connects the engine and also found defects in engine part and sound emanating from engine. It was duly reported to Opposite Party but replied that some parts of engine replaced and informed that replacement is within warranty period which costs Rs. 35000/-.
2. After completing 15000/- kilometer vehicle is kept for service. Vehicle is returned saying that vehicle is perfectly alright Rs. 754/- is collected for repair. On 17/12/2015 he went to Mangalore Airport with relatives to drop elder brother. While coming back on 18/12/2015 at Kumbala town a sound come from engine, smoke came out through front side bonnet engine stopped working. Complainant contacted Opposite party several times but did not lift complainant contacted Opposite party several times but did not attend the phone. By pushing car is removed to nearby petrol pump. Vehicle is taken to service centre of Opposite Party. Complainant made request to replace the vehicle. But Opposite party refused the same. Lawyer notice is sent but a false reply. Complainant claimed Rs. 10, 00,000/- as complainant and replacement of the vehicle.
3. The Opposite party appeared and filed written version saying that averment in complaint are false. Opposite party No:1 admits purchase of vehicle by complainant. No manufacturing defect it is fitted with brake pads which is not part of maruthi genuine parts but and denied service. Opposite party No:1 provided best service despite that demanded replacement even though there is no manufacturing defect and the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The Opposite party No:2 filed its separate version. Their contentions is that if there any deficiency of service Opposite Party No: 1 is alone liable. Opposite partyNo:2 is not liable. If any damage is caused to the car it is due to negligence by complainant. Service is provided as and when needed. When there is no manufacturing defect problem is removed by dealer in service and company is not liable to replace the vehicle and therefore claim may be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed his chief affidavit. He produced documents which are marked as Ext A1 to A6. Ext A1 is copy of R.C, Ext A2 receipt/invoice for price of vehicle. Ext A3receipt for Rs. 754/-, Ext A4 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext A5 postal receipt and Ext A6 AD. The Opposite party No:1 filed chief examination affidavit. He was cross examined. Opposite party produced documents marked as Ext B1 to B4. Ext B1 is advocates reply notice dated 11/01/2016 Ext B2 and B3 vehicle history pages. Ext B4 is warranty policy.
Opposite party No: 2 also filed chief affidavit and produced ownership manual and dealership agreement.
4. Considering the rival contentions following points arise for decision in the case.
a) Whether there is any manufacturing defect for the vehicle and thus the vehicle is to be replaced.
b) Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service from Opposite party? Whether complainant is entitled to any reliefs? If so for what reliefs?
5. The case of the complainant is that the vehicle he purchased is having defects. Complainant states while in the box that for the first time he realized the manufacturing defect after running a distance of 12000 Kilometer. He has taken delivery after repair on 08/01/2016 on satisfaction of its performance but when vehicle completed 17500 KM vehicle suffered complaints. He admitted that he did not seek opinion of expert. Dw1 while cross examination denied vehicle having any manufacturing defect. But he admits that while returning the vehicle it took three weeks for repairs.
6. From the averments in the complaint, documents produced evidence adduced in the case as well as written version of Opposite party No:1 and 2 documents produced and also since no expert report is obtained there is no evidence to prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle. So Opposite party No:2 is not liable to replace the vehicle or pay its value. Complainant is to prove the manufacturing defects for which he did not adduce any evidence.
From the evidence made available, this commission is of considered view that complainant was constrained to bring the vehicle for repairs and service due to complaints. Though vehicle is delivered after necessary repairs there is delay in prompt service and have there is negligence in the side of Opposite party No: 1.
While considering the point negligence and deficiency in service evidence of Pw1 is found to be reliable and trust worthy and the commission find that Opposite partyNo:1 is liable to pay compensation thereof .
Coming to decide the compensation part in terms of money, there is no evidence to show the actual financial loss. Admittedly vehicle is brought for repairs for several dates. There is delay in delivery after repairs it is found that there is so deficiency in service and negligence on the service of Opposite party No: 1. The complainant claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- compensation but there is no evidence for financial loss. In the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be the reasonable and also entitled for cost the litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party No: 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of R.C
A2- Receipt invoice
A3- Receipt
A4- copy of lawyer notice
A5- Postal receipt
A6- Postal Acknowledgment Card.
B1- Advocates reply notice.
B2 & B3- Vehicle history page.
B4- Warranty policy
Witness Examined
Pw1- Mohammed Asharaf
Dw1- Anil Kumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
