By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get replacement of defective part on warranty along with compensation for the deficiency of service by opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.12.2014 the complainant purchased a Maruthi Alto 800 from an authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 at Bathery. The said vehicle was manufactured by opposite party No.1. The vehicle was registered as KL 73 7326 at SRTO, Sulthan Bathery. The opposite parties assured 2 years or 40000 km warranty along with lifetime service at the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 in various places which are mentioned in the owners manual. The complainant has been conducted all the periodical services till 23.08.2016 from the service centre of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.4. During the second week of September 2016 the complainant noticed some unusual sound from axil of the vehicle and approached opposite party No.2 for rectifying the defects. On inspection, opposite party No.2 told that the axil is defective and it should be replaced, and demanded Rs.10,000/- towards the cost and even if the vehicle was under coverage of warranty. Thereafter complainant approached opposite party No.3 and 4 for seeking rectification of defect on warranty basis but they also denied warranty. Hence filed the consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against opposite parties.
3. Complainant filed I.A.415/2016 along with the complaint for rectification of the defect by replacing the axil on free of cost. Since the matter is very urgent, Forum allowed the I.A and directed to the opposite party No.2 to rectify the defects of free of cost. Thereafter complainant filed I.A.484/2017 stating that opposite party No.2 violated the order in I.A.415/2016 by charging Rs.4,791/- as repair cost from the complainant. In reply counter statement opposite party No.2 stated that the alleged defect occurred due to external hit and damage, this caused fluid leakage and due to plying of the vehicle with that foot damage caused damage to axil. The manufacturer will not cover warranty for external damage it can be repaired only on payment basis this was convinced to the complainant and after receiving consent from the complainant they repaired it on bill payment. The complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction and paid the bill amount of Rs.4,791/- without any objection. The present petition filed with an intention to defame this opposite party and grab unlawful gain from the opposite party. Subsequently, opposite party No.2 given back the bill amount to the complainant and complainant not pressed the I.A and proceeded with the case to get compensation from opposite parties.
4. On receipt of notice opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 appeared and version filed. But opposite party No.4 not present and no version filed and set ex-parte on 09.12.2016.
5. Brief facts of version of opposite party No.1:- Opposite party No.1 admitted that they are the manufacturer of the disputed vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question as the defect as observed in the vehicle (damage to the boot on the wheel side) is due to an external impact. The same is to be repaired on a paid basis and not under the warranty. The said warranty is not absolute and is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as enumerated in owners manual and service booklet. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The complainant has no locus standi to implead the answering opposite party to the present case as all its transactions/correspondences have been with the dealership.
6. Brief facts of version of opposite party No.2:- The vehicle was brought to this opposite party on 22.11 2016 with noise from front portion of the vehicle. On perusing the records it was seen that no periodical repairs including free services were not done to this vehicle, and so this opposite party had told the complainant that they could not do the repairing works under warranty. Since as per the Rules of Maruti and as per the guidelines given in the Manual issued to every customer it is clearly stated that the warranty will not be covered for the vehicles which do not have undergone periodical services stated by Maruti at any dealer workshop or any other authorized workshops authorized by Marutii. But the complainant want to get done the repair work under warranty and so he left the workshop with the vehicle on the same day. After that this opposite party had received the copy of the complaint and on receipt of the same this opposite party had contacted the complainant and asked him to bring the vehicle to the workshop. The Complainant had brought his vehicle on 22.11.2016 to this opposite party. On inspection of the vehicle at the Ramp it was found that the Rubber Boot covering of the Axle was seen to be broken due to some external hit and damage and caused fluid leakage and due to the plying of the vehicle with that Foot Damage caused damage to the Axil. This was shown to the complainant, and he was also convinced about that. As Maruti, the manufacturer, will not cover warranty for external damage, this opposite party had told the complainant that they can repair the vehicle only by paying the bill. The complainant had agreed for that and gave consent to this opposite party to repair the vehicle on bill payment and as such this opposite party had completed the works out of warranty and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction and paid the bill amount of Rs.4791/- without any objection. This opposite party had contacted the complainant after that and the complainant had told that there is no noise existing and he was also satisfied about the works done by this opposite party. In fact the case has become infructous as the complainant has no grievance any more about his vehicle and the defects pointed out by him was cleared absolutely.
7. Brief facts of version of opposite party No.3:- Opposite party No.3 submitted that the allegation in the complaint are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. This opposite party never had any information regarding the alleged complaint of the vehicle prior to this complaint. Complainant had never approached this opposite party for any sort of service or repair till the date and this Opposite Party came to know about the allegations of the complainant only once this opposite party received notice from this Honourable Forum. While going through the allegations in the complaint this opposite party found that complainant has not specified any date in which he claimed to visit this opposite party and the same itself shows that the allegation is baseless. Thereafter, this opposite party pulled out the vehicle service history of complainant's car from the Dealer Management System (DMS). DMS is the Service Record System kept for each car manufactured by the Opposite Party No. 1. All service and repair works carried out from any of the authorized service centers in India will be recorded in the system. Repair works or services done at third party service stations will not be recorded in the system. Going through the said vehicle service history, it is found that complainant has not maintained his vehicle properly. Periodical maintenance is not carried out at the authorized service centers. Periodical maintenance is the most important pre-condition to avail the warranty provided by the first opposite party and the same was agreed between the complainant and opposite party while purchasing the car. Since there are patent violations of the warranty terms and conditions, warranty became void and the complainant is not eligible for free service or replacement of any alleged defective parts under warranty. Further, complainant has never approached this opposite party for any service or repair work. Also, this opposite party is not liable to repair the vehicle free of cost since the warranty provided to the complainant by the first opposite party has become void due to wilful latches on the part of the complainant. This opposite party was always ready to carry out the work at the payment of cost since the warranty has become not applicable to the complainant's vehicle.
8. Subsequently complainant filed I.A.42/2017 to cause production of replaced part by opposite party No.2. In which opposite party No.2 replied that they have done the repair work on payment basis so that they have given back the replaced parts to the complainant on that day of repair itself and the complainant is well aware of the same.
9. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?.
2. Relief and Cost.
10. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. Opposite party No.1 and 2's witnesses were examined as OPW1, OPW2 and OPW3 respectively. Ext.A1 document was confronted and marked through OPW1. Ext.B1 to B9 were marked on the side of opposite party No.2. Complainant being a practising lawyer approached before the Forum with a prayer to get replacement of defective axle under warranty. This vehicle had reported in opposite party's workshops with a complaint of abnormal noise from front. On inspection it is found that the problem is with respect to the axle and that part need to be replaced. But opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 contested the matter stating that the vehicle is under normal warranty period and also having one year extended warranty. But on detailed inspection they found that the axle boot was physically damaged it leads to the defect. As per the warranty norms of MSIL they are unable to replace the part under warranty due to physical damage observed. To prove this opposite party No.2 produced Ext.B8 vehicle history and photographs of damaged axle.
11. OPW1 deposed that though the complainant wanted the vehicle to be repaired under warranty that was denied to him as the damage caused to the vehicle was due to the external impact to the boot (wheel side), thereby making the warranty void as per clause 4, sub clause (2) (4) and (5) of the warranty manual. Accordingly the refusal to repair the vehicle in question under warranty is justified. A copy of relevant warranty clause is produced and marked as Ext.B3. All the participated opposite parties contested that this disputed vehicle lost its warranty protection for two reasons that (1). The complainant has not maintained his vehicle properly, periodical maintenance is not carried out at the authorized service centres. Periodical maintenance is the most important pre-condition to avail the warranty terms and conditions, since the complainant has not entitled for replacement of part under warranty. (2). The second reason is that on inspection, it is found that rubber boot covering of the axle was broken due to some external impact resulting from the carelessness of the complainant in handling the vehicle, and not due to the manufacturing defects of this part.
12. Complainant produced Ext.A1 service manual and it was marked through OPW1. Perusal of Ext.A1 it appears that periodical service were done through opposite party No.2 and 4. While cross-examining OPW1 he admitted that in page No.55 of Ext.A1 New Indian Maruti Service Station (Opposite party No.4) is cited as one of their authorized service centre. But Opposite parties argued relaying on Ext.B8 photographs that axle rubber boot covering was physically damaged it leads to get the part defect and there is no manufacturing defect in the disputed vehicle in question as the defect as observed in the vehicle (damage to the boot on the wheel side) is due to an external impact and the same is to be repaired on a paid basis and not under warranty and the company will not provide warranty under clause (4) of warranty policy.
13. Opposite party No.2 further argued that on receipt of this complaint they have forwarded the claim to opposite party No.1 the manufacturer, but they rejected the claim for the above said reasons. Then they rectified the defects by replacing axle on payment basis, with the due consent of the complainant. While cross-examination by opposite party No.3, PW1 admitted that there is no piece of evidence with him to prove that he has approached opposite party No.3 with the alleged defect, as such in the complaint not mentioned any date to prove that this complainant approached opposite party No.3 with the alleged complaint.
14. On going through the complaint, affidavits, submissions and records it appears that after the institution of the complainant opposite party No.2 rectified the defect on payment basis after that complainant filed I.A.484/2016 against the violation of Order in I.A.415/2016 subsequently opposite party No.2 returned the bill amount of Rs.4,791/- to the complainant. Thereafter complainant had not raised any objection regarding the rectification of the complaint and further proceeded with the case for getting compensation of Rs.70,000/- and cost of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties for the alleged denial of service on free of cost. Elaborate evidence has taken PW1, OPW1, OPW2 and OPW3 were examined and Ext.B1 to B9 and Ext.A1 were marked. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that at the time of cause of action the vehicle was under warranty. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of part on warranty is the only one issue to be decided in this case. Opposite party contented that the alleged defect caused due to external impact. Opposite party's technician examined as OPW2 clearly pointed this relaying on Ext.B8. Complainant made an attempt to cause production of removed axle from opposite party No.2, through I.A.42/2017 but opposite party No.2 denied its possession by stating that they had already given it back to the complainant. So the actual reason for the defect of axle that whether it is due to manufacturing defect or external force stands not proved before us.
15. Regarding the second objection that complainant has not done periodical services from authorized service centre was challenged by complainant through Ext.A1. OPW1, admitted that opposite party No.4 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. During the pendency of the case opposite party No.2 repaired the vehicle by replacing the defective part on cost such as the role of opposite party No.3 also not proved by the complainant through supporting documents, mere allegation in the complaint against the opposite party No.3 has not sufficient to prove the allegation against them. Allegations bases on assumptions and presumption cannot be considered as a conclusive proof for getting compensation from the opposite party.
16. In the present case before replacing the defective part the complainant can very well take an independent Expert's opinion to find out the actual reason for the complaint of axle. Whether the defect is due to manufacturing defect or not is not proved before us beyond doubt, any way opposite party No.2 returned the bill amount to the complainant. So the 1st prayer in the complaint become infructuous.
17. Point No.2:- Regarding the second prayer, there is no expert opinion before us to prove the manufacturing defect other than opposite party's Expert opinion (Ext.B8). Hence complainant is not entitled for compensation. Regarding the third prayer complainant is the owner of a vehicle having warranty, opposite parties denied to repair the vehicle on free cost. It leads the complainant to approach before this Forum. After the institution of complaint opposite party No.2 repaired the vehicle and given back the repair cost to complainant. Hence we opine that the complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings from opposite party No.4 since they were not objected the allegations.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.4 is directed to pay Cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of October 2017.
Date of Filing:22.10.2016.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Sunil Dutt. Advocate.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Surya. Service Engineer and Service Manager, Maruti
Suzuki India Limited.
OPW2. Valsa Kumar. Technical Advisor, Indus Motors, Kakkavayal.
OPW3. Muhammed Shajid. Service Manager, Indus Motors Kakkavayal.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Owners Manual and Service Booklet.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Job Card. Dt:22.11.2016.
B2. Copy of Dealership Agreement.
B3. Copy of Warranty Policy.
B4. Letter of Authority. Dt:12.04.2017.
B5. Authorization Letter. Dt:24.04.2017.
B6. Copy of Vehicle History.
B7. Copy of Additional Approval.
B8. Copy of Email.
B9. Copy of Retail Invoice. Dt:22.11.2016.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
