CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 14 ^th day of December 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 16/08/2012

CC /158/2012

V.S. Chamunny,

S/o. Sukumaran, - Complainant

3/10, Vadakkumpuram House,

Erimayur (PO) Alathur Taluk,

Palakkad.

(BY ADV. R. Baluraj)

Vs

1. The Manager,

M/s. INDUS Motors Co-op Ltd,

Opp. South Gate of shipyard, - Opposite parties

M.G. Road, Cochin – 15.

2. The Manager

INDUS MOTOR Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

Vadakkumuri, Kannadi (PO),

Kuzhalmannam, Alathur Taluk,

Palakkad- 678 701

3. The Manager,

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,

(Head office),

Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070

(BY ADV. C.K. Bhaskaran & P.K. Aboobacker)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:-

The complainant is the owner of a 2008 Model Maruti Wagon R LXI – car bearing registration No. KL.49.A.1861 which was purchased from the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is an authorized vehicle dealer of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., and is having the reigistered office at Cochin. 2^nd opposite party is the authorized service center of the 1^st opposite party and having its office at Palakkad. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorized car manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki cars in India. The complainant has purchased a brand new Maruti Wagon-R LXI BS III- car from the 1^st opposite party delivered through the 2^nd opposite party on 27/12/2008 and is having the registration No. KL.49.A. 1861 and its chassis No. is 742804. At the time of purchase of the above car, it was also provided with an extended warranty of three years (Contract No. 09792757) valid till 26-12-2011.

The complainant has given the said vehicle for service at the work shop of the 2^nd opposite party on 14/12/2011 and detected that the vehicle is having mechanical defect as the engine cooling fan is not working. It was within the Warranty. As per the terms of the extended warranty provided while purchasing the car, the opposite parties are liable to service the vehicle with necessary replacement free of cost to the complainant. But after service, the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 15/12/2011 and he was compelled to pay Rs. 9,176/- through receipt No. 3939 and Rs. 9,982/- through receipt No. 3940, towards the expenses for the spares and labour. Eventhough the complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to return the old spare part materials, the same was refused. The amount so collected from the complainant is illegal and against the terms of the warranty agreement.

Complainant issued a registered notice to the 1^st opposite party on 27.12.2011 demanding to repay the amount collected at the time of warranty. But the 1^st opposite party received the said notice have neither made any reply nor paid the said amount to the complainant. The complainant has issue a registered lawyer notice on 27.01.2012 to the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has made a reply raising false contentions and not repaid the amount collected unauthorized. Subsequently a registered lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party on 29.03.2012. Eventhough the 2^nd opposite party have received the said notice, have neither made any reply nor paid the said amount to the complainant. The intention of the opposite party is not to execute the warranty offer to the complainant as promised by them at the time of purchasing the new car. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part. Complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with 12% interest per annum till realization. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties 1&2 filed version with the following contentions :-

Opposite party denies the say of the complainant that the vehicle was brought to the 2^nd opposite party for service on 14.12.2011 and it was detected that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect as the engine cooling fan is not working. The vehicle was brought to the 2^nd opposite party on 14.12.2011 for body repair works and with the complaint of low water level in the radiator. After a detailed inspection it was found that the water level in the radiator was steamed away due to high rise of temperature as the engine cooling fan (17120M76G00) was not working. It is not a manufacturing defect, but a normal complaint which is curable by changing of the defective part alone. But at that time the said defective part of Engine Cooling Fan was out of stock but the kit of the whole assembly which includes three parts ie Motor Assembly, Engine Cooling Fan (17120M76G00), Shroud (17760M7FG00) and Fan. Engine cooling (17111M76G01) was available there. Infact the complainant's vehicle does not need to replace the whole assembly. Complainant was told to wait for at least one week to reach the stock of the defective part alone and to do the work under the extended warranty scheme. As only the defective part is to be replaced, the 3^rd opposite party Maruti will not replace the kit as a whole under warranty. But the complainant was not prepared to wait for that time as he urgently wants the vehicle immediately. The 2^nd opposite party had offered a spare vehicle to be used for those days. But the complainant was not prepared to accept that offer and he insisted that he wants the vehicle on the same day itself by replacing the whole assembly at his own cost. If the complainant had waited for some days he could have get done the said works free of cost under extended warranty. So as agreed by the complainant the 2^nd opposite party had replaced the kit assembly and the charge of Rs. 9176/- was paid by the complainant without any objection. The complainant had also paid Rs. 9982/- for the body repair charges which does not include in the extended warranty and the vehicle was delivered immediately after completing the necessary works. From the above it is clear that the opposite parties had not violated any of the conditions of the warranty.

The allegation that the complaint that eventhough the complainant had requested to return the parts removed from the vehicle, the 2^nd opposite party had refused to give is not correct. If a cusomer wants the old parts removed from the vehicle he should make a request to that effect at the time of entrusting the vehicle. Otherwise if a customer comes and request to return the same after some days of the repairing works, the workshop people will be put to difficulty to find out the same because usually the old parts will be put in the the scarp. But in this case the complainant had not requested the old parts either at the time of entrusting the vehicle for repairs or at the time of delivery of the vehicle. But even then the 2^nd opposite party had returned the old parts to the complainant client except some bushes after a few days of taking delivery of the vehicle.

There is no deficiency of service on the part of any of the opposite parties 1&2 and no unfair trade practice is committed by the opposite parties and the opposite parties had not violated any of the conditions of the warranty. So the complainant is not entitled for any amount as compensation or reimbursement from the opposite parties.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of the chief affidavit of complainant and opposite parties 1&2. Ext. A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence on the side of opposite parties. Opposite party 3 has not filed any version or chief affidavit.

Issues for consideration are :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issue No. I & II

The definite case of the complainant is that during the warranty period he entrusted the vehicle with the opposite party No. 2 for service and found that engine cooling fan is not working. The grievence of the complainant is that contrary to the warranty conditions he was compelled to pay RS. 9176/- for spares and Rs. 9,982/- for labour.

According to opposite parties, the engine cooling fan was defective and since the said spare part was out of stock, at the request of the complainant, the whole assembly was changed which includes the motor assembly, engine cooling fan, shroud and fan.

Heard both parties and gone through the entire evidence on record.

Engine entrusted for service with 2^nd opposite party is admitted. Defect in the cooling fan and extented warranty is also admitted. The cost of spares and labour charge levied by the opposite party No.2 is also admitted. The limited question to be considered is whether there was shortage of the said spare part and whether the whole unit was replaced and whether it was at the request of the complainant.

It is seen that there is absolutely no piece of evidence to prove the above contentions. There is no evidence to show that spare part was not available at the relevent time or the whole unit was replaced. Complainant was not cross examined to prove the aspect that it was at his request the whole unit was changed. So it stands proved that during the extented warranty period complainant was compelled to pay the spare part charge which is against the warranty conditions. According to opposite party Rs. 9982/- paid was towards body repairs which will not come under warranty. There is no evidence forthcoming from the complainant side to show that it comes under the warranty conditions.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the act of opposite parties 1&2 amounts to deficiency in service. No deficiency in service stands proved against opposite party No.3.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party 1 & 2 directed to pay complainant Rs. 9176/- ( Rupees Nine thousand One hundred and Seventy six only) along with Rs. 1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 1000/-( Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party 3 is exonerated from any liability.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 14 ^th day of December 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Copy of the extended warranty registration form dtd. 27.12.08.

Ext.A2 – Copy of the cash receipt No. 3939. dtd. 15.12.11.

Ext. A3 – Copy of the cash receipt No. 3940. dtd. 15.12.11.

Ext.A4 – Copy of the Registered notice with acknowledge card to the opposite party. Dtd. 27.12.11.

Ext.A5 - True copy of the lawyer notice, postal receipt with acknowledgement card to the 1^st opposite party, dtd. 27.01.12.

Ext. A6 - Reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party to the lawyer of the complainant, dtd. 17.02.12.

Ext. A7 - True copy of the lawyer notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement card sent by the complainant's advocate to the 2^nd opposite party, dtd.29.03.12.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings