Smt. Har Kiran Thakur wife of Shri B,S Thakur, resident of Near Carmel Convent School, Rani Ka BaGH, Shimla Road, Nahan, Distt Sirmaur H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus



1 Maruti Udyog Limited through its General Manager ( Service department) Palam- Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, ( Haryana)



2. D.D Motors, 81-A Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001, ( Utranchal) through its Manager.





…Opposite Parties.




O R D E R:



This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she purchased a new Maruti Car from the OP No.2, on, 06.07.2005, manufactured by the OP No.1. She avers that after covering distance of 25000 kilometers, it was noticed that there was some problem with the engine oil. She immediately brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of the OPs, and also lodged a written complaint on, 12.06.2006.


Thereafter, the car of the complainant was checked by Works Manager, who after inspection informed that the car is now in perfect condition. However, after covering about 3000 kilometers, when the car was checked by M/S Aggarwal Motors, the engine oil was again found less, hence she again filled up the engine oil upto maximum capacity and intimated about the said defect to the OP No.2. The complainant further proceeded to aver that thereafter the OPs were requested on several occasion to inspect the vehicle and carry out necessary repairs, but of no avail. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, that there is no deficiency in service and that there is no cause of action. On merits, it is contended on behalf of the OP No.1 that the complainant took her vehicle to a Maruti Authorized Service Station for routine maintenance service and they cannot undertake warranty repair or replacement. It is further contended that the vehicle was sold to the complainant as per terms and conditions of warranty, hence the complainant is bound by the said terms and conditions and as per clause 6, the complainant is required to bring the vehicle to the workshop of authorized dealer and as such, she was advised to produce the vehicle at the workshop for inspection and repair under warranty, if any, which she failed.


It is denied that the vehicle is a sub-standard product and not of merchantable quality. The OP No.1 further contend that they never shirk from their warranty liability subject to complainant provide the vehicle to the workshop, as such, no negligence can be attributed to them. The OP No.2, in its separate reply, has denied the allegation of the complainant in toto and contended that the complainant was asked to bring her vehicle to their workshop at Dehradoon, for mechanical inspection, but she did not turn up, hence, no negligence of any kind in not repairing the vehicle of the complainant, can be attributed on the part of the OP No.2. As such, it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits/documents, in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The grievance, as, ventilated by the complainant qua the defect in the engine, has been repulsed by the OPs by filing a detailed reply. An affidavit has also been sworn by the OPs disclosing the fact that the defects as complained by the complainant, had not come to be noticed during its inspection at the authorized workshop of the OPs at Dehradoon.

6. Even during the pendency of the complaint, before this Forum, this Forum on, 05.09.2007, had directed the OPs to rectify the defects in the vehicle. In compliance wit the orders rendered on, 05.09.2007, the OPs did proceed to rectify the defect as existing in the vehicle. The OPs have also filed a report of the technical expert, who has in compliance with the directions of this Forum, had, not only proceeded to reflect in it that, on, inspection of the vehicle, the, defect as complained of by the complainant qua leakage of engine oil from the engine, hence, purportedly revealing a defect in the engine was, not, observed by them. The said report of the technical expert has not been repulsed by the complainant. The complainant has also not subsequent to the rendition of the report of the technical expert on, 05.09.2007, has not brought on record any material to substantiate the defect that the leakage of engine oil from the engine side still persists.

7. The effect of the report of the technical expert as placed on record and with its manifesting the non-observance by the technical expert of the defect as complained of by the complainant and which the observations divulged in his report placed on record not having been come to be repudiated, hence, we are of the view that the complainant has acquiesced to the findings as recorded by the technical expert or her grievance have been mitigated. Hence, the result of the above discussion, is, that the complainant, has miserably failed to prove that there was any defect in the engine, hence, entitling him to claim relief against the OPs.

8. In view of the above, the complaint being merit less deserves dismissal and hence we order accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP by the office through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Smt. Har Kiran Thakur wife of Shri B,S Thakur, resident of Near Carmel Convent School, Rani Ka BaGH, Shimla Road, Nahan, Distt Sirmaur H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus



1 Maruti Udyog Limited through its General Manager ( Service department) Palam- Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, ( Haryana)



2. D.D Motors, 81-A Rajpur Road, Dehradun-248001, ( Utranchal) through its Manager.





…Opposite Parties.







O R D E R:



This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she purchased a new Maruti Car from the OP No.2, on, 06.07.2005, manufactured by the OP No.1. She avers that after covering distance of 25000 kilometers, it was noticed that there was some problem with the engine oil. She immediately brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of the OPs, and also lodged a written complaint on, 12.06.2006. Thereafter, the car of the complainant was checked by Works Manager, who after inspection informed that the car is now in perfect condition. However, after covering about 3000 kilometers, when the car was checked by M/S Aggarwal Motors, the engine oil was again found less, hence she again filled up the engine oil upto maximum capacity and intimated about the said defect to the OP No.2.


The complainant further proceeded to aver that thereafter the OPs were requested on several occasion to inspect the vehicle and carry out necessary repairs, but of no avail. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, that there is no deficiency in service and that there is no cause of action. On merits, it is contended on behalf of the OP No.1 that the complainant took her vehicle to a Maruti Authorized Service Station for routine maintenance service and they cannot undertake warranty repair or replacement. It is further contended that the vehicle was sold to the complainant as per terms and conditions of warranty, hence the complainant is bound by the said terms and conditions and as per clause 6, the complainant is required to bring the vehicle to the workshop of authorized dealer and as such, she was advised to produce the vehicle at the workshop for inspection and repair under warranty, if any, which she failed. It is denied that the vehicle is a sub-standard product and not of merchantable quality. The OP No.1 further contend that they never shirk from their warranty liability subject to complainant provide the vehicle to the workshop, as such, no negligence can be attributed to them.


The OP No.2, in its separate reply, has denied the allegation of the complainant in toto and contended that the complainant was asked to bring her vehicle to their workshop at Dehradoon, for mechanical inspection, but she did not turn up, hence, no negligence of any kind in not repairing the vehicle of the complainant, can be attributed on the part of the OP No.2. As such, it is contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavits/documents, in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The grievance, as, ventilated by the complainant qua the defect in the engine, has been repulsed by the OPs by filing a detailed reply. An affidavit has also been sworn by the OPs disclosing the fact that the defects as complained by the complainant, had not come to be noticed during its inspection at the authorized workshop of the OPs at Dehradoon.

6. Even during the pendency of the complaint, before this Forum, this Forum on, 05.09.2007, had directed the OPs to rectify the defects in the vehicle. In compliance wit the orders rendered on, 05.09.2007, the OPs did proceed to rectify the defect as existing in the vehicle. The OPs have also filed a report of the technical expert, who has in compliance with the directions of this Forum, had, not only proceeded to reflect in it that, on, inspection of the vehicle, the, defect as complained of by the complainant qua leakage of engine oil from the engine, hence, purportedly revealing a defect in the engine was, not, observed by them.


The said report of the technical expert has not been repulsed by the complainant. The complainant has also not subsequent to the rendition of the report of the technical expert on, 05.09.2007, has not brought on record any material to substantiate the defect that the leakage of engine oil from the engine side still persists.

7. The effect of the report of the technical expert as placed on record and with its manifesting the non-observance by the technical expert of the defect as complained of by the complainant and which the observations divulged in his report placed on record not having been come to be repudiated, hence, we are of the view that the complainant has acquiesced to the findings as recorded by the technical expert or her grievance have been mitigated. Hence, the result of the above discussion, is, that the complainant, has miserably failed to prove that there was any defect in the engine, hence, entitling him to claim relief against the OPs.

8. In view of the above, the complaint being merit less deserves dismissal and hence we order accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP by the office through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.