Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1367/2015

Sham Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Maruti Wagnor Stingrey Cars - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vikram Manchanda

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1367

                                                Instituted on:    21.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       25.07.2016

 

Sham Sunder son of Sarup Chand, resident of Street No.9, Sector A, Ram Nagar, Near Anvart Bal Bharti School, Indira Basti, Sunam, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             The Maruti Wagonr Stingrey Cars, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its MD/authorised signatory.

2.             M/s. Try City Autos, Zirkpur Patiala Highway, Near AKM Resorts, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali through its authorised signatory.

3.             M/s. Max Autos Dhuri Road, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Vikramjit Garg, Adv.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Exparte.

For OP NO.3             :               Shri Rajesh Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Sham Sunder, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Maruti Wagonr Stingrey car bearing engine number K10BN7393582 and chassis number MA 3E WDEIS 00778056 on 29.9.2014 from OP number 2 vide invoice number VSL14000599 for Rs.3,83,396/- and further the OP number 2 gave a warranty of three years against any of the defects in the car in question.  The grievance of the complainant is that after about one month from its purchase, the car in question developed some defects, as such, the complainant approached OP number 2, who advised the complainant to contact OP number 3.  It is further averred that as per the advice of OP number 2, the complainant approached OP number 3 on 22.11.2014 and explained the problems in the car and after checking the car in question, the OP number 3 found that there was problem of crank shaft, liquid gas kit, gas kit head and other problems and it is further stated that the crank shaft can  only be replaced by opening the engine of the vehicle.  It is stated further that the engine of the car was having manufacturing defects which arose within very short span of the purchase of the new car.  The complainant as such again approached on 6.12.2014 as the car in question developed the problem in clutch, as such the OP number 3 replaced the clutches with a new one.  It is further averred that on 13.4.2015, the said car again created problems then the complainant approached OP number 3, and the OP number 3 founds problems i.e. flywheel, cover assy clutch and clutch disk and the clutch plates of the car were found burnt.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant approached mechanic Sukhbir Singh of Sunam and explained the defects therein, who after checking told the complainant that there is manufacturing defects in the said car. As such, the complainant requested the OPs to replace the car in question with a new one, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice dated 3.9.2015 upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant the purchase price of the car i.e. Rs.3,83,396/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase or to replace the car in question with a new one and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint  is without any cause of action, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On merits, it is stated that the OP being the manufacturer of the car in question stands warranty for a period of two years or 40,000 KMs from the date of delivery which ever is earlier. It is stated that the Op is not liable to replace the car with a new one.  It is admitted that the complainant reported the engine starting problem on 22.11.2014 and on checking it was observed that the said problem occurred due to some impurity which entered the engine assembly through fuel. However, the vehicle was attended.  It is further admitted that the complainant reported the problem of burning of clutch plates on 16.1.2015 at a mileage of 1021 Km and again after driving the vehicle for more than 1000 KM on 15.4.2015 at a mileage of 2097 KM, which was observed due to wrong driving habit.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint,  that the present complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of proper and necessary opposite party, as the manufacturer of the vehicle in question has not been impleaded as a party, that there is no defect, delay or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the car in question has been admitted, however, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. 

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, it is admitted that on 22.11.2014, the complainant approached OP number 3 regarding the defects in the car and the OP number 3 thoroughly checked the car of the complainant and removed all the defects by replacing various parts including liquid gas kit, crankshaft etc. which were required to be replaced and all this was done within warranty. It is correct that the car was returned to the complainant on 16.12.2014 to the complainant after removing the defects. Further it is stated that again the car of the complainant was repaired on 16.1.2015 due to clutch problem, however the Op replaced the clutch set of the car in warranty.  Further it is admitted that the complainant again brought the car on 13.4.2015 and stated that there is some problem with the clutch of the car. The OP checked and requested the complainant that the clutch plates of the car are getting damaged as the car is being driven with half clutch and due to that reason only the clutch plates of the car are getting damaged and again the clutch plates and fly wheel were replaced free of cost. However, some legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of invoice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of job cards, Ex.C-7 copy of expert opinion, Ex.C-8 copy of RC, Ex.C-9 copy of extended warranty, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 copies of receipts, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-16 photographs, Ex.C-17 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-18 and Ex.C-19 copies of receipts, Ex.C-20 copy of job sheet instructions and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of warranty policy, Ex.Op1/2 affidavit along with annexure R-1/1 to Annexure R1/5 and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit of Anil Kumar Garg, Ex.OP3/2 affidavit of Sukhjeevan Singh, Ex.OP3/3 copy of vehicle history, Ex.OP3/4 and Ex.OP3/5 copies of job sheets, Ex.OP3/6 copy of cash memo, Ex.OP3/7 copy of satisfaction note, Ex.OP3/8 to Ex.OP3/12 copies of job cards and cash memos and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             First of all,  OP number 2 has taken the objection that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, as the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP number 2 at Zirakpur, which falls within the district SAS Nagar, Mohali.  No doubt, it is true that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP number 2 on 29.9.2014, but after its purchase, the complainant got repaired the car on various occasion from OP number 3, who is admittedly  the authorised dealer of the Manufacturer of the car in question.  It is further worth mentioning here that the OP number 3 repaired the car by replacing various parts of the car in question free of cost on behalf of the manufacturer.  Thus, the OP number 2 and 3 are the dealers of the manufacturer and manufacturer of the car is doing the business through its dealers like OP number 2 and 3.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that when the car in question was repaired by OP number 3 and the OP number 3 is also selling the new cards at Sangrur, as such, we feel that the manufacturer is doing the business through its dealers, as such, we feel that this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint, as a part of cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  

 

8.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 2 to the complainant for sale of the car in question for Rs.3,83,396/- which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the car in question and availed the services of the OP number 2, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact that the car in question was having a warranty/guarantee of two years or 40,000 KMs from the very date of its purchase, as is evident from the document Ex.OP-1/1.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though after one month of purchase of the car in question the car was having starting problem and as such he approached OP number 2 for redressal of his grievance and the OP number 2 advised the complainant to approach OP number 3 at Sangrur and after checking the car in question by OP number 3, it was found that there is crank shaft problem, liquid gas kit, gas kit head and others problems, as such, the OP number 3 replaced the parts free of cost, as is evident from the copy of the bills Ex.C-4, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. Ex.C-17 is the copy of legal notice sent to the OPs on 03.09.2015 by the advocate of the complainant Shri Vikrant Garg, Advocate, Sunam.   Further to support the contention, the complainant has drawn our attention towards the copy of vehicle history, Ex.OP3/3, which clearly reveals that the engine of the car was suffering from various problems and on various occasions, the OP number 3 replaced its parts free of cost under warranty such as fly wheel, clutch disc new wagonr, cover assy, clutch, bearings, crankshaft upper, gasket, PIN, MGO, crankshaft, gasket, cylinder head cover and so many other parts of the engine.  Further Ex.Op3/4 is the copy of job slip issued by OP number 3 on 22.11.2014 stating that there is starting problem in the engine. Again Ex.Op3/5 is the copy of job card wherein it is clearly stated that the ‘engine not starting’, which is dated 30.09.2014. Further the OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/8 to Ex.OP3/12 from where it is clearly proved that the car in question was having clutch problems. On the other hand, the OPs have not produced any iota of evidence to say that the car is not suffering from any such problems, more so when the OPs never tried to even check the car nor made any offer before this forum to check the car at their own and to make it fully working condition, as the complainant has spent a huge amount of Rs.3,83,396/- on its purchase apart from other expenses such as registration charges etc. Further it is worth mentioning here that the car in question was under warranty/guarantee for two years or a run of 40,000 KMs whichever is earlier from the date of its purchase, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/1.  Further it is proved on record that the vehicle in question developed various defects within a very short span of its purchase. As such, we feel that the car in question suffered defects within its warranty period.  As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in not properly repairing the car during the warranty/guarantee period of two years. 

 

9.             Since it is an admitted case that the complainant approached the OP number 3 for getting the car in question repaired as is evident from the copies of various job orders sheets, produced on record, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle along with interest.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Palam Tractors versus Shri Jamir Ahmmed 2010(2) CPC 676 (HP State Commission), wherein it has been held that despite replacement of engine of the three wheeler, the defect could not be removed, as such, it was ordered for replacement of the engine of the vehicle and further awarded compensation for harassment. As such, we feel that the above said case law is fully applicable in the facts of the present case, as such, present complaint deserves to be allowed as it is a clear cut case of deficient in service on the part of the OPs, as the OP number 1 has miserably failed to set right the engine of the vehicle in question.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Mahinda and Mahindra Ltd. Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Chandan Mondal and others 2013(4) CPJ 486, wherein the complainant visited a number of times to get the tractor repaired during the warranty period and the job cards produced ample evidence to prove that the vehicle in question did have defects and complainant was put to hardship on account of that. It is futile to go into minute/extreme technicalities in order to establish whether the defects pointed out qualifies to be classified as manufacturing defect or not.  It is a hard fact that the consumer, who is a farmer, was put to a lot of mental agony, harassment by the purchase of the said defective vehicle. Hence, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission there was no fault committed by State Commission and the impugned order of the State Commission was upheld.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Malabar Motors versus K.V.Jayarajan and another 2013(4) CPJ 329 (NC), wherein it has been upheld the order of the State Commission returning the cost of the vehicle with interest and compensation as the vehicle in question was sent for repairs for number of times to the petitioner as number of defects were there. 

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP number 1 to replace the car in question with a new one or in the alternative to refund him an amount of Rs.3,83,396/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 21.10.2015 till realisation.  The OP number 1 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

11.                   This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 25, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member