SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

            Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for their defective service and cost of this proceedings.

           Brief facts of the complaint’s case is that on 05/07/2012 the complainant purchased Maruthi 800 (AL-CRR-BSS-CMB-ZAM-Model) car from the 1^st OP for an amount of Rs.2,33,071/-.  At the time of purchasing the vehicle OPs assured free service warranty service for 24 months and an extended paid service warranty of one year to the complainant.  On believing the same the complainant purchased the vehicle.  But after 3 months of purchase of the vehicle while driving the vehicle, a noise of friction is heard from the wheel of the right rear side of the vehicle.  On search it is seen that the sound is caused because of the touching of mudguard with the wheel while the vehicle is moving.  On the strength of the free service warranty the complainant approached the 1^st OPs to repair the complaint.  The 1^st OP promises to rectify the complainant and the vehicle was handed over to the 1^st OP.  After 2 days the vehicle was returned back to the complainant and 1^st OP made belief the complainant that the problem is solved by the service.  But within a short span of time the noise was return from the same place and the complainant again approach the 1^st OP and demanded to repair the same on the basis of the free service warranty.  But in surprise the1st OP demanded the complainant to approach to popular Auto service center, the other authorized dealer of the second OP.  As such the complainant approached the Popular Auto service centre Kannur.   But they told the complainant that the problem occurs because the axile of the vehicle is more length than actually require and hence it has to be changed.  Hence the complainant changed the axile upon payment but problem is not solved.  Thus the manager of Popular Auto Service centre told that they cannot solve the problem and suggest to the complainant to approach the OPs.  Again, the complainant approached the 1^st OP and then the 1^st OP advised to approach to Popular Vehicles and service Ltd. Ezhilode.  The complainant approached several times before the Popular Vehicles and service Ltd. Ezhilode and then the staff of Popular Vehicles and service Ltd. Ezhilode expressed their helplessness to this complainant and paid the service charges each and every occasion by this complainant.  Due to the defects for a long period the vehicle was not in use.  As such complainant send notices to the OPs.  But so far complainant will not get relief from the OPs.  The 2^nd OP not send any replay notice to the complainant so far.  The complainant caused to huge amount as loss and mental agony due to the lack in service of the OPs.  The loss caused to the complainant due to the lack of proper service is Rs.50,000/- and the complainant calculated the loss due to the mental agony is Rs.50,000/.  Hence both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

           After receiving notice 1^st OP entered appearance and filed version through counsel stating that the complainant had purchased a Maruti 800 car on 05/07/2017 for an amount of Rs.2,33,071/- and at the time of purchase these OPs had assured free service warranty to the vehicle for a period of two years and an extended paid service warranty for one year.  OP 1 denied the averment that from 3 months after the purchase of the vehicle a noise of friction is heard from the wheel of the right rear side of the vehicle is false and hence denied by this OP No.1.  Further this OP No.1 submit that 1^st and 2^nd free service of the vehicle was done on 07/08/2012 and 02/01/2013 respectively.  And during the 1^st and 2^nd free service of the vehicle no defects were pointed out by the complainant.  Moreover the 2^nd free service had provided 5 months after the purchase of vehicle by the complainant.  OP No.1 states that it was during the 3^rd visit on 05/07/2013 complainant demanded the repairs on rear RH shock sound, OP No.1 ordered the spares on the same day and on 09/07/2013 defective shock observer was replaced with the new one under normal warranty, made the vehicle road worthy and entrust the same to the complainant.  Further submits that this OP No.1 demanded the complainant to approach popular Auto service centre, one of the authorized dealer of OP No.2 is not correct and hence denied.  It is stated that this OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of OP No.2 and the duty of this OP is to provide service to all the Maruti customers including the complainant without any deficiency in service.  This OP had rendered service without any delay till the fourth visit of the complainant.  This OP No.1 had not given any instruction to the complainant to approach popular to rectify the complaints of the vehicle.  The OP submits that even if problem exist after the replacement of RH shock observer the complainant should report the same to OP No.1 or if this OP is not willing to consider the complaint the complainant can straight away report the same to OP No.2 without any wasting of time.  But no such actions were taken by the complaint till date.  Further this OP submit that the complainant with his own interest approached popular and not with the support of this OP No.1.  The averment that it was with the knowledge of this OP No.1 the complainant approach popular Vehicles at Kannur and Payyannur is not true and hence denied by this OP No.1.  Further averment that the complainant changed the axile upon payment is not true and denied by this OP No.1.  This OP No.1 submits that if service had been provided by popular vehicles apart from OP No.1, then they should also be made as necessary party to this complaint because as per the complaint it was deficiency in service as such service was provided by popular also.  The OP1 submits that no deficiency in service had been occurred from the side of this OP till the fourth visit by the complainant.  The OP states that a reply notice had been send to the complainant stating no deficiency occurred from the side of OP No.1.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            2^nd OP filed  version through counsel stating  that the liability of OP2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause-3 of the warranty policy as set out in the owner’s Manual and Service Booklet.  The OPs have never been denied any warranty benefits which the complainant is rightly entitled to.  The complainant with ulterior motive had been making demands which are beyond the scope of warranty.  It is submitted that admittedly the complainant bought the vehicle in question on 05/07/2012 and the primary warranty stood concluded on 04/07/2014 by efflux of time.  It is submitted that the answering OP being manufacturer gives specific warranty to the vehicle for a period of 24 months or 40,000/- kms and the complainant to his entire will and volition opted of extended warranty for 3^rd year or 6,000/-kms.  It is submitted that neither the complainant reported alleged problem nor the same was found by the experts service engineers of OP No.1 at the time of obtaining 1^st and 2^nd free inspection service on 07/08/2012 at 341 kms and 02/01/2013 at 1949kms respectively.  Normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  The vehicle was in defect free perfect condition.  It is submitted that there was no alleged problem in the vehicle and the OPs fulfilled their obligation as per the terms of warranty whenever the vehicle was sent to the workshop for obtaining services.  It is submitted that the vehicle was not retained for two days for replacement of alleged part.  It is submitted that on 09/07/2013 the rear shock absorber was replaced under warranty without any charge. It is submitted that the same doesn’t impact the performance of the vehicle.  It is submitted that the complainant to his own will and volition took the vehicle for obtaining services at the workshop of M/s popular vehicle & service.  It is submitted that no consideration was charged from the complainant for replacement of axle of the vehicle and the complainant is put to strict proof to the same.    It is submitted that the axle of more length than actually required cannot be fitted in the vehicle.  It is submitted that there was no problem or defect in the axle of the vehicle and the alleged noise was due to tyres which was identified by its respective vendor.  It is submitted that the “tyre & tubes” falls outside the purview of warranty and the complainant has no case against OP No.2 in any manner.  It is submitted that the tyres were replaced on Free of cost basis to the complainant and the complainant was satisfied with the performance of the vehicle.  It is submitted that the complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle in question.  It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service or negligence or default on the part of OP2 of any nature.  it is reiterated that the complainant is bound by the express terms and conditions of warranty and cannot clam any benefit beyond the terms of warranty.  There is no commission or omission on the part of answering OP causing any hardship or loss or mental agony to the complainant.  Hence according to OP No.2, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation from him.  So prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

              At the time of evidence from the side of complainant two witnesses including the complainant and one witness service manager of popular Maruthi were examined and marked documents Ext.A1  to A19 were marked.  On behalf of OPs Senior Manager of OP No.2 was examined as Dw1.

            After that the learned counsel of complainant made oral argument and the learned counsel of OP No.2 filed written argument notes.

          Admittedly, the Maruti 800 car was purchased  on 05/07/2012 for an amount of Rs.2,33,071/- and the vehicle had assured free service warranty for a period of two years and an extended paid service warranty for one year.

            Complainant case is that after 3 months of purchase of the vehicle while driving, a noise of friction is heard from the wheel of the right rear side of the vehicle.  1^st OP promises to rectify the complainant but after rectification, within a short span of time the noise was return from the same place and the complainant again approach the 1^st OP and demanded to repair the same on the basis of free service warranty. According to complainant, OP No.1 demanded the complainant to approach to popular Auto service centre, the authorized dealer of   2^nd OP to solve the problem.  But the problem was not solved, so the complainant approached again to OP No.1 for curing the defect. Complainant alleged that due to the defect, the vehicle could not be used for a long period.  Complainant has stated that due to the defect the complainant caused to huge amount as loss and caused mental agony.   Hence filed this complaint.

             On the other hand OP No.1 contended that during the 1^st and 2^nd free service of the vehicle, complainant did not point out any complaint to the vehicle.  Further states that during the 3^rd service demanded the repairs on rear RH shock sound and hence the defective shock absorber was replaced with a new one under normal warranty.  According to OP No.1 they never directed or instructed the complainant to approach popular Auto Service centre for rectifying the defect of the vehicle.  According to OP No.1 even if problem exists after the replacement of RH shock absorber, the complainant should report the same to OPs.  But no such actions were taken by the complainant.  Further submits that the complainant at his own interest approached popular service centre.

             OP No.1 further contended that after the 3^rd service complainant has done all the services from popular vehicles,  So OP No.1  is not liable for any problem if any after the 3^rd free service.  According to OP NO.1 also, complainant availed service of popular vehicles without the opinion of OP No.1.  Further contended that complainant should have taken steps to appoint an expert and should be tested the vehicle to elicitate the defect of the vehicle.  Further contended that there is no defect in the vehicle and if any defect has come, it must have come from the service of the other service centre.

             Here from the documents submitted from the side of complainant shows that on 09/07/013 just after one year from purchase, the vehicle has taken to OP No.1 service centre for repairing shock absorber and OP No.1 received cash of Rs.240/- as repairing expense.  In Ext.A7 it can also be seen recorded that the vehicle reported for the 3^rd free service with the same problem.  Further stated that it is observed that rear sound is originating due to defective RH side shock absorber.

             This document clearly shows that the complainant raised the said defect prior to the 3^rd free service ie before 09/07/2013 and further revealed to during Ext.A7 period, warranty was in force and then OP No.1 charged and received value of shock absorber from the complainant.  It is further seen that in Ext.A9 Job order sheet of OP No.1 service centre that during the warranty period the OP No.1 done repaired work for sound check and further charged and received Rs.1,000/- from the complainant.  Ext.A15 to A19 are the job cards issued by popular vehicles on perusal of Ext.A15 to A19, we can see that from popular vehicles and service centre, complainant was provided warranty benefit and extended warranty benefits to complainant.  It is also revealed that in Ext.A17, it is stated that on discussion with maruti, Senior Manager of Maruti Mr. Vargheese visited the workshop of popular service centre and done test drive and as per ASM and QA team destruction changed 5 tyres of the vehicle with free cost.  From these documents we can see that the service availed by the complainant was exactly from the direction of OP No.2 manufactures of the vehicle.  Hence we can observe that the work done by complainant from popular vehicle service centre was with the consent of OPs.

             The fact that the car had to be taken to workshop for   more than 10 times within a period of 2 years even then the defects exists makes out clearly that there was a manufacturing defect in the car.

             In the result, complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant towards monetary loss and compensation for mental agony.  Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-  towards cost of the proceedings.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the order.  Failing which Rs.50,000/- carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1-Delivery note dated 05/07/2012

A2-Ledger Extract of OP1 (invoice  dated 06/07/2012)

A3-Copy of the RC

A4-Job card dated 07/08/2012

A5- Job card dated 02/01/2013

A6- Job card dated 05/07/2013

A7- Job card dated 09/07/2013

A8- Job card dated 20/01/2014

A9- Job card dated 20/01/2014

A10-Wheel alignment result

A11-Job slip dated 20/02/2014

A12- Job slip dated 20/02/2014

A13-Copy of the notice dated 14/07/2014

A14-Reply notice from OP 1

Pw1- Complainant

Pw2-Edward K J-Witness of complainant

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar