BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No : 542 of 2010

Date of Institution :  03.09.2010

Date of  Decision   :  09.05.2010

Narinder Kumar son of Late Sh. Jammu Ram, resident of House No. 3241, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, presently residing at House No. 459, Ph.3-A, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar.

 ….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   The Manager, Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

2]   The Manager, Plants, Gurgaon Plant, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Gurgaon Plant, Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon.

3]   The Manager, Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Plot No. 29/06, Indl. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

4]   The Manager, Berkeley Automobiles Ltd., Plot No. 27, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

5]   The Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:   Sh.P.D. GOEL                    PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL          MEMBER

            DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Manish Arora, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Parmod Kumar, Counsel for OPs No.1, 2 & 5.

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OP No.3 & 4.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

           Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant complaint are that the Complainant purchased an ALTO LX BS III car, vide Invoice No. 7425 on 20.09.2009, from OP No.3, for a total consideration of Rs.2,46,628/-. It was alleged that during 1st service of the car on 16.10.2009, the Complainant specifically pin-pointed the wobbling problem in the vehicle, which was not taken care of by the OP No.3. Due to facing persistent wobbling problem, the Complainant again took the car to OP No.3 on 27.10.2009, on which date, after making certain adjustments, the car was delivered to him. Since his grievance has not been properly redressed by the OP No.3 inspite of repeated requests, the Complainant lodged complaints on the Maruti Helpline Number, which also proved futile. Even during 2nd service on 30.01.2010, when the problem was brought to the notice of the Service Supervisor of OP No.3, nothing concrete was done. Having failed to found the tangible fault, the OP No.3, even replaced all the tyres and rims of the vehicle on 28.03.2010, which reduced the wobble problem temporarily. However, the same problem reoccurred, which fact was again brought to the notice of OP No.3 on 31.5.2010, during the 3rd service, but to no avail. His contention was that the OPs had sorted out the aforesaid problem temporarily just to satisfy him and to close the complaint status in their record. Further, he was told that every Maruti Alto wobble at the speed of 60 to 100 km because of its light weight. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to elicit any fruitful results, he got served a notice dated 06.08.2010, as a measure of last resort, calling upon the OPs either to refund the entire payment or to change the vehicle, but OPs did not take any action whatsoever. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2]         Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]         OPs No. 1, 2 & 5 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that they have no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the individual customer and their relationship with the dealer was that of Principal-to-Principal. It was denied that the vehicle in question was having alleged problem or the Complainant reported the same at the time of obtaining 1st free service on 16.10.2009 at 678 Kms. After carrying out normal service as per maintenance schedule to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant, the vehicle was delivered to him in perfect O.K. & roadworthy condition. Upon complaint made by the Complainant, the vehicle was duly attended by the expert Service Engineer of OP No.3 on 27.10.2009 at 1005 Kms and found no abnormality in the same. After carrying out extensive road test, the Complainant took the delivery of the vehicle, without any protest and demur. Thereafter, the Complainant sent the vehicle at the workshop of OP No.3 for obtaining running repairs on 23.11.2009 at 3251 Kms. and upon stiff demand of the Complainant, all the four tyres were replaced, free of cost, as goodwill gesture. The Complainant after service took the delivery of the vehicle to his entire satisfaction. It was submitted that during 2nd service on 30.1.2010 at 5501 Kms., the Complainant reported vehicle wobbling check, rear shocker noise check and brake & clutch hard upon which the vehicle was thoroughly inspected by the expert Service Engineer of OP No.3 and no abnormality was observed. Even during the 3rd service on 31.5.2010 at 9924 Kms respectively, the Complainant did not report alleged problem and normal service as per maintenance schedule were carried out to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. It was asserted that the OPs fulfilled their obligations unequivocally as per the terms & conditions of warranty at all times, whenever the vehicle was presented for service and the Complainant had coined a false story without any material on records to obtain unjustified gains. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4]         OPs No. 3 & 4 in their joint reply, while admitting the core facts of the case, pleaded that the vehicle of the Complainant was thoroughly checked on each time, when the Complainant reported the alleged problem of wobbling. However, on each occasion, no such defect was found in his vehicle. Even just to satisfy him, all the tyres and the rims of the vehicle were changed free of costs. All other pleadings with regard to service history of the vehicle & carrying out service as per maintenance schedule, as taken by OPs No.1, 2 & 5, in their separate reply, have also been reiterated by these OPs. Rest of the material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

7]         There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant had purchased an ALTO LX BS III car, vide Invoice Annexure C-1, for a sum of Rs.2,46,628/-.  The contention of the Complainant was that the car had an inherent manufacturing defect, as he had been facing persistent wobbling problem right from the day one of the purchase of the car, which the OPs, despite attempting their best, could not able to rectify. There are, on record, job cards/invoices C-3 to C-8, wherein the Complainant has signed but there is no remark by him regarding any dissatisfaction with regard to the job carried out. Furthermore, a perusal of all these job cards and invoices would indicate that the vehicle of the Complainant was thoroughly checked on each time when the Complainant reported the alleged problem of wobbling. Had the Complainant any grouse with regard to the car or the repairs/ services done, he should not have either signed the job cards/ invoices or should have recorded his dissatisfaction on the same but, for reasons better known to him, the same has not been done. Furthermore, when the Complainant had taken the car to the OPs, OP No.3 had replaced all the tyres and the rims, as a goodwill gesture. Also, there is no evidence on record of the alleged problem of wobbling  in the car in question. There is also no expert evidence led by the Complainant to prove his contention that the car in question is defective or has any inherent manufacturing defect, nor the Complainant had made any application before this Forum, so that the car in question could be sent to some expert, for obtaining his opinion. All the allegations leveled by the Complainant are mere bald assertions and does not carry any weight. 

8]         The OPs, during the course of arguments, had brought to the notice of the Bench that the car was bought from them on 20.09.2009 and their liability under the warranty which was part and parcel of the sale contract was specific as set out under the warranty policy as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet. Furthermore, Annexure C-1, which is the sale invoice, also contain certain terms & conditions, to which the Complainant was a signatory, regarding warranty. Condition No. 7 and 8 whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“7.   I have personally checked the vehicle and have not found any defect in Body Chassis or in Engine.

8.    If any objections is to be made regarding this invoice, it should reach us within 10 days from the date of invoice, otherwise the invoice would be considered accepted.”

From above, it is quite evident that the car was delivered to the Complainant to his entire satisfaction. A perusal of the vehicle history placed on record by the OPs (Annexure R-3/1) proves beyond the shadow of doubt that the vehicle in question has no defect, much less inherent manufacturing defect. 

9]         In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10]       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.