BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.564 of 2014
Date of institution: 09.09.2014
Date of Decision: 15.06.2015
Sandeep Khan resident of village Dharamgarh, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Tricity Autos, Zirakpur- Patiala Highway, Near AKM Resort, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Manager.
2. Hira Automobiles Ltd. Village Badhak, Rajpura-Patiala Road, Rajpura Punjab through its Managing Director.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Devinder Kumar, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.
Opposite Parties No.2 exparte.
Shri Salil Sabhlok, counsel for OP No.3.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):
- either to replace the vehicle or refund its price.
- to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(c) to pay him Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant’s case is that he purchased Maruti Ertiga vehicle from OP No.1 and got it insured vide insurance policy Ex.C-1. From the first day of its purchase the vehicle is giving problem. The complainant got serviced the vehicle twice from OP No.2 vide Ex.C-3 and C-4. The complainant took his vehicle to OP No.1 on 25.12.2013, 13.03.2014, 26.04.2014 and the needed repairs were done without charging anything vide invoice Ex.C-5 to C-8. The complainant again took the vehicle to OP No.1 on 09.05.2014 and this time an amount of Rs.5,130/- was charged from the complainant vide invoice Ex.C-9 but the problem still persist in the vehicle. The complainant sent legal notice dated 16.06.2014 to the OPs and only OP No.2 replied to the same and remaining OPs did not bother to reply to the legal notice. The complainant then again got repaired the vehicle on 27.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 by paying Rs.3989/- but the vehicle still suffers from the same problem. The vehicle is under warranty. There is inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded that this Forum does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The vehicle has been sold by OP No.2 and not by OP No.1. The complainant has not placed on record the sale certificate of the vehicle. The complainant approached it on 09.05.2013 for third free service and after service the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant again visited on 22.06.2013 with some problem and the defect was rectified vide job card dated 22.06.2013. The complainant visited different Maruti dealers alongwith his vehicle for sixteen times and every time the problem was rectified without any charge. If there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle the complainant would have approached OP No.2 and 3. As per terms of warranty the term warranty shall be 24 months or 40,000 KM whichever occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. The vehicle has been plied more than 40,000 KM hence is out of warranty. Thus, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. Separate written statement has been filed by OP No.3. It has pleaded in the preliminary objections that it has fulfilled its obligations under warranty as per its terms and conditions. The complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle has completed more than 42,000 KM within a short span of two years which proves that the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle given to the complainant was brand new and defect free. All the vehicles manufactured by it are sent to the dealers only after passing the FCOK test. The complainant took the delivery after satisfying himself and never reported any problem at the time of first and second free service. The complainant did not adhere to timely service schedule. Various replacement were carried out free of cost for the satisfaction of the complainant but the complainant continued his hue and cry without any reason in order to built a false case. The stabilizer, steering column and clutch assembly were replaced under warranty. The complainant again reported clutch problem and to rectify it the clutch overhaul was carried out but the complainant again reported the same problem which indicates the negligent driving of the complainant. Thus, OP No.3 has also sought dismissal of complaint against it.
4. The complainant has taken dasti summons for service upon the OPs. The summons was sent by registered post but the status of service was available at the site of India post. None appeared for OP No.2 despite lapse of 30 days. Thus OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte on 18.12.2014.
5. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-19.
6. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Dhruv Garg, its CEO Ex.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-9
7. Evidence of OP No.3 consists of affidavit of Shiv Raj Pushp, its authorized representative Ex.OP-1/3 and documents Ex.OP-3/1 and Ex.OP-3/2.
8. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, OP No.2 was given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for it to rebut the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by the OP Nos.1 and 3.
10. Admittedly the complainant has not attached any document regarding purchase of the vehicle. Admittedly the complainant has availed two free services of the vehicle from OP No.2. Admittedly the complainant has availed third free service from OP No.1 vide Ex.C-5. Admittedly after expiry of the warranty the complainant has again approached OP No.1 for servicing and effecting certain repairs and that being a paid service, OP No.1 has charged an amount of Rs.1087.71 as per Ex.C-6 and Rs.5130/- as per Ex.C-9. The grievance of the complainant is that despite effecting repairs and services the vehicle is not functioning properly and, therefore, he has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle having been manufactured by OP No.3 and prayed for replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle besides other reliefs.
11. OP No.1 has admitted the job card Ex.OP-1. The perusal of Ex.OP-1 shows that the vehicle has been sold to the complainant by OP No.2 as is evident from the code HK01 mentioned against the heading sold by. In order to prove that the vehicle has been sold by OP No.2 to the complainant, OP No.1 has produced Ex.OP-2 the dealers details sorted by regionwise dealer, namewise and city wise in which the name of Hira Automobile i.e. OP No.2 appears at Sr.No.328 with dealer code as ‘HK01-HK01’ whereas the name of OP No.1 i.e. Tri City Autos Pvt. Ltd. appears at Sr.No.401 with the dealer code ‘9M01-9M01’. As per the vehicle history Ex.OP-1, the code of OP No.2 is shown meaning thereby the vehicle has been sold by OP No.2. The complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect while getting the first two free services from OP No.2 as is ample clear from his own documents Ex.C-3 and C-4. So much so even when the vehicle has been serviced by OP No.2 no manufacturing defect has come to their knowledge, neither the same was pointed out by the complainant as is evident from Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8. As per OP No.1 the warranty policy entitles the complainant to have the benefits of warranty within 24 months or 40,000 KM whichever occurs first from the date of delivery to the first owner. Since the complainant has never shown the invoice to the OPs to show the date of delivery, therefore, the complainant has been covered under the other clause of 40,000 KM and he has been given free services when the mileage was 6435 KM on 22.03.2013 and has been charged for service when the vehicle had already run the mileage of 41509 KMs vide vehicle history mentioned at Page-17 Ex.OP-8. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. We are in full agreement with the contention of OP No.1 as the evidence adduced and appreciated by us above fully supports the contentions of OP No.1.
12. So far allegation of manufacturing defect is concerned, as per OP No.3 the manufacturer there is no manufacturing defect as the complaint is absolutely silent about any specific defect. The only problem reported by the complainant was regarding clutch problem and the same has been taken care of by the authorized service station. The repair of clutch is not covered under the warranty and, therefore, the OPs have rightly charged after the vehicle has run 41000 KMs. We have perused the record and found that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence or leveled any specific allegation regarding manufacturing defect in the complaint.
13. In view of the above discussion, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 15, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
