a) get exchange the above said defective vehicle i.e. Celerio VXI Green car having its Chasis No. MA3ETDE1S0060 7138, Engine NO. K10BN8203419 Model 2019 now the said vehicle was having its registration NO. HR-51-BW-2846 with another new one, without claiming any amount from the complainant. .
b) pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Registered notice sent to opposite party No.1 on 13.9.2021 not received back either served or unserved. Case called several times since morning but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.10.2021.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had alleged that after service in the vehicle on 09.02.2020,during the delivery the complainant observed some rust marks on the bottom side of the doors and the workshop of opposite party No.1 stated that the doors/parts of the vehicle would be changed/replaced during next service. It had been further alleged that on the next visit on 25.01.2021 she had reported the concern of rusting but the workshop of opposite party No.1 stated that they would not remove the concern of rusting. Whereas the reality was that the vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 09.02.2020 for 3rd free inspection service. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. No concern of rusting was noted during the delivery of the vehicle. F The complainant had not raised any concern to the workshop by any mode of communication post delivery of the vehicle. Also the said concern was reported after a year of the said visit when the vehicle ha d been plied for more than 1603 kms. The complainant had failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claims. The vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 25.10.2021 for periodic maintenance service at 8186 kms
and the concern of rusting was reported by the complainant. The vehicle was inspected for the concern of rusting by paint vendor ‘Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited’ and it was observed that the alleged rusting was due to long contact of the said parts with water and moisture leading to rusting in right hand side front door and left hand side front door. As the concern was due to external reasons, the necessary repairs could not have been carried out under warranty and were to be carried out on payment basis. The same was duly communicated to the complainant. The answering opposite party was only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40,000 kms. From the date of sale. The said warranty was subject to certain teems and conditions and limitations as set out in Owner’s manual & service booklet. The concern of rusting was not reported by the complainant post-delivery on 09.02.2020 as alleged. Further, the concern was reported after a year to the workshop of opposite party No.1 on 25.01.2021. When the vehicle was inspected for the concern of rusting by paint vendor “Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited” it was observed that the alleged rusting was due to long contact of the said parts with water and moisture leading to rusting in right hand side front door and left hand side front door. As the concern was due to external reasons, the necessary repairs could not been carried out under warranty and were to be carried out on payment basis. The same was duly communicated to the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against
opposite parties– The Faridabad Cars Pvt. Ltd. & Anrs. with the prayer to: a) get exchange the above said defective vehicle i.e. Celerio VXI Green car having its Chasis No. MA3ETDE1S0060 7138, Engine NO. K10BN8203419 Model 2019 now the said vehicle was having its registration NO. HR-51-BW-2846 with another new one, without claiming any amount from the complainant. . b) pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sunita Punjani, Ex.C-1 – Original for recipient/duplicate for transporter/triplicate for supplier tax/vehicle & charges invoice, Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice cum certificate of extended warranty registration, Ex.C-3 – Invoice, Ex.C-4 – job card,, Ex.C-5(colly) - photographs, Ex.C-6 – email, Ex.C-7 – Deal proforma, Ex.C-8 – legal notice,, Ex.C-9 & 10 – postal receipts, Ex.C-11 & 12 – track consignment.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party no.2 strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 Ex.R-2/A – affidavit of Shri Akhil Gupta s/o Shri Ajay Kumar working for Maruti Suzuki India Limited (formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited) having its registered office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi,Ex.R2/1 – Dealership agreement,, Ex.R-2/2 – warranty policy,, Ex.R-2/3 – inspection report.
7. In this complaint , the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to get exchange the above said defective vehicle i.e. Celerio VXI Green car having its Chasis No. MA3ETDE1S0060 7138, Engine NO. K10BN8203419 Model 2019 now the said vehicle was having its registration NO. HR-51-BW-2846 with another new one, without claiming any amount from the complainant
8. It is evident from Ex.C-1,the car in question was purchased on 28.02.2019 from opposite party NO.1 vide invoice No. 004/VSL18001625 and the AMC was also purchased by the complainant. After sometimes, the complainant got the car front door rusted. The extended warranty was purchased by the complainant till 2023. After sometimes the car of the door got rusted and complainant made a complaint to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 but no body care about the complaint of the complainant. Ultimately he filed a complaint before this Commission .
9. During the course of arguments, counsel for opposite parties argued at length and stated that inspection report of Kansal Nerolac vide Ex.R-2/3 in which it has been mentioned that “Rusted due to long contact with water and moisture. Right Hand Side Front door and left hand side front door found rusted.” As per the above report,, there is no signature on the inspection report. Only name is given i.e. Bhoopendra Kumar (Area Trainer), Kansal Nerolac. He is not expert. He is a trainer and also submitted the document Ex.R2/1 i.e. Dealership agreement and opposite party No.2 which is principal to principal. No doubt the complainant has paid huge amount of money to opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 and the opposite parties are making profit and the door was rust without any reason. In the interest of justice, , the commission is of the opinion that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. As per the report of Kansal Nerolac (Trainer) there is no fault in the above vehicle. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2, jointly & severally, are directed to :
a) change the door of vehicle in question & fix the rusty part free of the cost.
b) pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
c) pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 19.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
