Haryana

StateCommission

A/1038/2017

MODERN AUTOMOBILES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SS ASSOCIATES - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.BANSAL

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:16.08.2017

                Date of final hearing:05.09.2023

                                                Date of pronouncement: 25.09.2023

 

First Appeal No.1038 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      M/s Modern Automobiles, G.T. Road, near Model Town Crossing, Ambala City.

2.      M/s Maruti Udhyog Ltd., Gurgaon.

          Both through its Sr. Works Manager, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar.

 

.….Appellants.

Through counsel Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate

Versus

 

M/s S.S. Associates, 276/6, Naya Bans, Radha Krishan Bazar, Ambala City through Shri Sandeep Bansal.

…..Respondent.

Through counsel Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. S.R. Bansal, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Naveen Gupta, counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.07.2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now ‘District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and opposite parties (“OPs”) were directed as under:-

“        In view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered view that the OPs have wrongly charged the amount of Rs.45,800/- from the complainant, though the vhicle was in the warranty period. Hence, we allow the present complaint and the OPs are directed to comply the following directions within a period of thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.45,800/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Failing which, they will be liable to pay further interest @ 12% on the awarded amount for the default period.”

           

2.                The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that on 30.04.2011, the complainant purchased one Maruti SX4 VDI Car bearing Engine No.1600828, Chassis No.187140 from OP No.1. Extra payment was also made by the complainant for extra warranty for any defect upto two years or upto 40,000 Kms from the date of delivery whichever is earlier and last service was conducted at 31,191 Kms. on 26.11.2011. It was alleged that in the month of April, 2013 the vehicle started giving trouble and the mileage meter showed reading 39045 and the vehicle was presented to OP No.1 for rectification of defects as the vehicle was covered under full warranty, but OP No.1 refused to rectify the defects and rather stated that the complainant has to bear charges to the tune to Rs.45,800/- for repairs. So, the complainant paid abovesaid amount vide invoice No.BR13000061 dated 22.04.2013. It was further alleged that when the vehicle was taken inside the workshop, it was told to complainant that due to less engine oil the said defects were occurred and complainant is bound to pay Rs.45,800/-, though the meter never showed any indication of less oil in the engine. It was further alleged that the claim of OP No.1 was not justified for the reasons that all the services were conducted by OP No.1 and it was their bounden duty to fill the oil and to check leakage, if any. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared before learned District Commission and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 in its reply submitted that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes by the company through Sandeep Bansal, Sanjeev Bansal and Urmil Bansal, who are the partners of the firm as per admitted fact being documentary proof. It was further submitted that the vehicle was out of warranty as the car was last attended on 30.07.2013, while covering 50608 Kms. In the month of April, 2013 the vehicle started giving some problem and technical staff alongwith the works manager inspected the vehicle to which engine oil was found less, filter was also found fitted non-MGP and drain plug was also of inferior quality and inspection was made in the presence of the customer and everything was told to him, upon which the complainant had allowed the workshop mechanics to get the job done on payments basis, which had caused noise of engine due to carelessness, negligence of the complainant of the car and further was told the job was not covered under warranty and would be on payment basis and complainant had also given his consent. It was further submitted that thereafter, two more jobs on 15.05.2013 and lastly on 30.07.2013 were got done while last covering 50,608Kms. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on part of OP No.1.

4.                OP No.2 it is written reply submitted therein that the vehicle has been tempered by the local mechanics and non-genuine/unapproved oil was found in the vehicle which was the cause of alleged problem in the vehicle. It was further submitted that normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant at the time of obtaining paid service on 26.11.2011 at 31,191 Kms.  It was further submitted that complainant himself failed to abide by the warranty terms and conditions and was quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle in question. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint vide its order dated 14.07.2017 and directed the OPs discussed in para 1^st (Supra).

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

7.                Arguments have been advanced by Shri S.R. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Naveen Gupta, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

8.                Mr. S.R. Bansal, learned counsel for appellants has argued that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 30.04.2011 for commercial purposes and was used by a company through Sandeep Bansal, Sanjeev Bansal and Urmil Bansal, who are the partners of the firm. Moreover, the vehicle in question was out of warranty as the same was lastly attended on 30.07.2013, while covering 50608 Kms and as per respondent-complainant it started giving problem in the month of April, 2013, upon which technical staff alongwith the works manager inspected the vehicle to which engine oil was found less, filter was also found fitted non-MGP and drain plug was also of inferior quality and inspection was made in the presence of the customer and everything was told to him, to which the complainant had allowed the workshop mechanics to get the job done on payments basis, which had caused noise of engine due to carelessness, negligence of the complainant of the car and further was told the job was not covered under warranty and would be on payment basis and complainant had also given his consent. He further argued that thereafter, two more jobs on 15.05.2013 and lastly on 30.07.2013 were got done while last covering 50,608Kms. He further argued that that the vehicle has been tempered by the local mechanics and non-genuine/unapproved oil was found in the vehicle which was the cause of alleged problem in the vehicle. Moreover, the normal service as per periodic maintenance schedule was carried out to the entire satisfaction of the complainant at the time of obtaining paid service on 26.11.2011 at 31,191 Kms.  He further argued that the respondent-complainant himself failed to abide by the warranty terms and conditions and was quite negligent and careless in proper maintenance of the vehicle in question. He further argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellants-OPs and prayed for setting aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.

9.                On the other hand, Mr. Naveen Gupta, learned counsel for respondent has argued that that on 30.04.2011, the respondent-complainant purchased the vehicle in question from appellant-OP No.1 by making extra payment on account of extra warranty for any defect upto two years or upto 40,000 Kms from the date of delivery whichever is earlier and last service was conducted at 31,191 Kms. on 26.11.2011. Thereafter, in the month of April, 2013 the vehicle started giving trouble and the mileage meter showed reading 39045 and the vehicle was presented to appellant-OP No.1 for rectification of defects as the vehicle was covered under full warranty, but they  refused to rectify the defects rather stated that the complainant has to bear charges to the tune to Rs.45,800/- for repairs. So he paid the said amount vide invoice No.BR13000061 dated 22.04.2013. He further argued that it was told to respondent that due to less engine oil the said defects were occurred and complainant is bound to pay Rs.45,800/-, though the meter never showed any indication of less oil in the engine. He further argued that the said claim of Rs.45,800/- was not justified for the reasons that all the services were conducted by appellant-OP No.1 and it was their bounden duty to fill the oil and to check leakage, if any.

10.              On a composite reading of averments taken in the complaint as well as in the grounds of appeal, it is true that on 30.04.2011, the respondent purchased a Maruti SX4 VDI Car, bearing engine No.1600828, Chassis No.187140 from appellant-OP No.1. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent-complainant paid extra payment on account of extra warranty for any defect upto two years or upto 40,000 Kms from the date of delivery whichever is earlier. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle in question become defective in the month of April, 2013 and the mileage meter showed reading 39,045. So it is proved that the vehicle in question was under warranty period at the time of arising of defects. On the other hand, it is also an admitted fact the appellants charged Rs.45,800/- from the respondent-complainant on account of repairs of these defects. Hence, it is also proved that the defects were repaired on charging basis despite the fact that the vehicle in question was under warranty period.

11.              Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the finding given by the learned District Commission on merits. Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. Therefore, the present appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed and therefore, stands dismissed.

12.                 A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.                 Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.                Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of present appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt, identification and as per rules after expiry of the period for filing appeal, revision, if any.

15.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 25^th September, 2023

                                                                                       

           

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik

                                                                                                            Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench-III