IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

            DATED THIS THE  29^TH  DAY OF JULY  2016

Present: -    Smt. G.Vasanthakumari, President

Smt. Ravisusha, Member

Sri.M.Praveen Kumar, Member

         CC.No.49/2015

A.Shajahan                                                         :                  Complainant

S/o Aliyarukunju

Shahnas Manzil, S.I of Police

Ottumala

Kattadi P.O

Pooyappally

Kottarakkara

Kollam

[By Adv. Palakasseri.R.Mohanakumar, Kollam]

V/S

          1.       The Maruti Suzuki India Ltd         :                  Opposite parties

                   Reg.Office, Plot No.1

Nelson Mandala Road

Vasant Kunju

New Delhi

[By Adv.S.Riyas, Kollam]

          2.       Indus Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd

                   Conidial (dealer) Tower, Near St. Mary’s School

                   Kesavadasapuram

                   Pattom P.O

                   Thiruvananthapuram – 695004

          3.       Indus Motors

Authorized Service Centre of Indus Motors Company Pvt.Ltd

Pallimukku

Kollam

[By Adv.P.K.Aboobacker & S.Aneesh, Kollam]

    (2)

ORDER

SRI. M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, MEMBER

          Complainant’s case is that his vehicle Alto Lxi Car –KL-24-D-8564, was covered by an extended warranty registration dated 06/01/2012, dealer code 1602-16-01,and valid upto 5^th January 2015 or 6000 Kms whichever is  earlier. Warranty registration dated 06/01/2012 contract No.122740178 dealer code 1602-16-01. The extended warranty is awarded to the vehicle model 800 with No. MA3EAA61S01952330.  The warranty is valid up to 5^th January 2015 or 6000 Kms whichever is earlier.  The vehicle has sum only 30000 Kms till November 2014. Then it was found that front right axel had some defect and some unwarranted sounds are producing. The vehicle was brought to the ‘Indus Motors’ Kollam from where the delivery of the car was effected and the authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. On inspection it was found that the axel is malfunctioning and it requires replacement. They told that the estimated cost of replacement of the axel  and repair charges are to be paid by the complainant, then only they will do the work. As per the warranty dated 06/01/2012 opposite parties No.1 and 2 are legally liable to replace the axel and repair the car at their cost.

          The complainant reported the defect and the refusal of the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defect at its cost. Immediately the matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party, and the 1^st opposite party sent therein email dated 19^th November 2014 informing the complainant that the matter has been forwarded to the relevant department.  Again the complainant reported the matter on 24/11/2014 by sending an email to the 1^st opposite party but no action was taken so far by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties refused to repair or replace the part of the car or pay damages for the same. In the above circumstances the complainant

(3)

on 18/12/2014 sent a legal notice intimating the whole fact to both parties. The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply denying their liability raising false allegation but no reply so far has been received from the 1^st opposite party. Therefore the complainant was compelled to replace the right axel and repair the consequent damages , paid the amount from his pocket.  The complainant has to pay a sum of RS.12,000/- to the workshop where work  was carried out. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting Rs.12,000/- and the complainant claim a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay the same jointly and  severally.

          1^st opposite party filed version contending that 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. Complaint has no case for deficiency/defect of any nature as defined under Section 2(f) &(g) of Act on the part of this opposite party. The complainant has been provided benefit as per the terms and conditions of warranty. There is no act of omission or commission, neglect or default on the part of answering opposite party of any nature. The instant complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs being devoid of merits. Complainant sent the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party no.2 for obtaining running repairs and reported axle sound as demanded repairs. On the detailed analysis it was found that the noise was emanating from the axle and the axle boot was found damaged which caused due to the sudden impact of some sharpen object only. It is submitted that since the cause of damage was due to external reasons ie boot, cut, hence the same do not fall under the ambit of warranty.  The email address mentioned by the complainant as evident from the annexure annexed by the complainant is incorrect and wrong. Here it is pertinent to submit that at the very outset the alleged e-mail was sent on the incorrect ID on 24/11/2014 and the

(4)

acknowledgment of the said e-mail is dated 19/11/2014 which is totally erroneous and false. The complainant has forged the documents to mislead this Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief/compensation as prayed for.

          Opposite parties 2 and 3 filed version contended that the warranty and extended warranty are guided by the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  The vehicle had run 30,000 kms at the time of the complaint and the vehicle was regularly visiting the workshop of these opposite parties and the vehicle history shows that the vehicle had visited 8^th time as on 07/06/2014 and these opposite parties had done good service and the complainant had no complaint regarding the service of these opposite parties till the above complainant. During November 2014 the complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of the 3^rd opposite party with a complaint of noise from the front right axle boot. On a detailed inspection it was found that the axle boot was got damaged due to some sudden hit by some sharpen object. As the same was occurred due to a force from outside, the same is not a damage arised in the normal use of the car and also the same is not connected with the manufacturing defect and so the same will not be covered under the warranty.  These opposite parties demanded payment for the work of replacing axle boot as the same is not covered the extended warranty for the reasons mentioned above. The statement in the complaint that these opposite parties want to delay the matter till the expiry of the warranty on 05/01/2015 is not correct. Even before the expiry of the extended warranty the complainant is not entitled to get replaced and repaired the said work under the extended warranty as the same is not a damage arising in the normal use of the car and also the same is not connected with the manufacturing defect and so the same will not be covered under the warranty. Complainant is not entitled to get done the said work under the extended warranty as the same is not connecting with any manufacturing defect and so the same will not be  be covered under the warranty and so there is no

(5)

deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties. As the work demanded does not covered under the extended warranty and there is no valid reason for the demand of payment by these opposite parties for the work demanded by the complainant.  The complainant had caused to issue a lawyer notice to these opposite parties stating false allegations to which these opposite parties had given a detailed reply to the complainants lawyer. There is no deficiency of service on the part of these opposite parties in the above case and the complainant had not suffered any loss, injury or hardships from any of the action of these opposite parties and so he is not entitled for any compensation whatsoever from these opposite parties.

          The points that would arise for consideration are:-

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

          (2). Reliefs and costs?

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence Exts P1 to P7 and D1 to D6.

The Points:- In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 7 documents. On the basis of the chief examination he was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts P1 to P7. Opposite party 1 represented by Arun Prakash, Maruti Suzuki India Limited filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents, on the basis of the proof affidavit he was examined as DW1 and documents marked as Exts D1 and D2.

Here the crucial question arise of consideration is whether the complainant is eligible to claim under extended warranty.

          Admitted case of the parties that complainant had purchased an Alto Lxi Car  with Reg .No. - KL-24-D-8564 from the opposite parties 1 and 2 on 31/12/2011

(6)

and the said vehicle had an extended warranty dated 06/01/2012 which is valid upto 05/01/2015. On November 2014 the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of 3^rd opposite party with a complaint of noise from the front right axle boot.

          Here no dispute regarding the validity of extended warranty and the repairing of the vehicle and also the labour charge. Which is evidenced through Ext.P2 certificate of extended warranty, Ext. P6 bills from opposite party and other documents. As far as the Ext. D1 and Ext.D2 documents is concerned in case of any liability arise upon extended warranty, then the liability goes to opposite party 1.

          Opposite party 1 contended and admitted that the manufacturer of the vehicle is limited to provide warranty benefits as per clause -3of warranty policy as set out in the owner’s manual. Opposite parties 2 and 3 argued that the work of replacing axle boot as the same is not covered the extended warranty. On examination of Ext.D2 document (produced by 1^st opposite party) it is seen that     “if any  defect(s) should be found in Maruti Suzuki vehicle within the term stipulated above, Maruti Susuki’s only obligation is to repair or replace at its sole discretion any part shown to be defective, with a new part or the equivalent at no cost to the  owner for parts or labour, when Maruti Suzuki acknowledges that such a defect is attributable to faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacturer” in clause No.2 of same document stated that “ the terms of the warranty shall be twenty four (24) months or 40,000/- kilometers  (whichever occurs first) from the date of delivery to the first owner”. Counsel for the complainant submitted that defects of the vehicle is covered under the extended warranty certificate issued by 1^st opposite party. Complainant side produced certificate of extended warranty issued by 1^st opposite party marked as Ext.P2 and

(7)

stated that the extended warranty is awarded to the vehicle model Alto 800 with VinNo.MA3EAA61S01952330 and applicable for option. 3^rd year which is valid upto 5 June 2015 or upto 60,000 Km.

          Perusal of the documents P1,P2, P6 , D2 , we are on the opinion that the said vehicle have defects and repaired  on 26/02/2014 of 30129 Kms which is within the warranty  condition of D2 document and P2 document. More over the defect of axle is not in the clause 3 (list of components not covered) of the Ext.P2 document

          Hence, we are on the view that, it’s a clear case of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party and complainant is liable to get relief from the 1^st opposite party.

In the result, complaint allowed in part. Opposite party 1 is directed to pay Rs.12,000/- to the complainant. 1^st Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000 as compensation and Rs.2500/- as cost to the proceedings. This order must be complied with within one month of date of receipt of this order. Non compliance of this order the amount of Rs.12000/- will carry 9% interest per annum till realization. 

Dated this the  29^th day of July 2016.                                                                                                                                     

SMT.G.VASANTHAKUMARI:Sd/-

SMT.RAVISUSHA:Sd/-

SRI.M.PRAVEENKUMAR: Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

I N D E X

PW.1:- Shajahan

DW.1:- Arun Prakash

(8)

Ext.P.1:- Invoice dated 31/12/2011

Ext.P.2:-Warranty extended certificate dated 06/01/2012

Ext.P.3:-Copy of email dated 24/11/2014

Ext.P.4:-Advocate notice dated 18/12/2014

Ext.P.5:-Reply notice dated 29/12/2014

Ext.P.6:-Bill No.30129 dated 26/02/2014

Ext.P.7:-Copy of RC Book

Ext.D.1:-Dealership agreement

Ext.D.2:-Warranty policy

Ext.D.3:- Copy of final inspection check sheet – mechanical repair

Ext.D.4:-Letter dated 21/11/2014 from Indus Motors Co.(P).Ltd .

Ext.D.5:-Copy of email dated 24/11/2014

Ext.D.6:- Copy of email acknowledgment dated 19/11/2014