| Final Order / Judgement | STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 20.03.2023 Date of final hearing: 12.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2023 APPEAL NO.272 OF 2023 IN THE MATTER OF Maruti Suzuki India Limited, represented by its authorized person, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 Versus 1.Mrs. Sunita Punjani wife of Shri Ravi Kumar, resident of 2-M/10, N.I.T. Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana-121001 Respondent No.1/Complainant - M/s. Fairdeal Cars Private Limited, Plot No.63/1, Industrial Area, Hitkari Complex, N.I.T. Faridabad, District Faridabad, Haryana-121001 through its Directors/Principal Officers.
Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President Ms. manjula, Member Present: Shri Salil Sabhlok, counsel for the appellant. PER: T.P.S. MANN, J. ORDER - Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.
- Opposite party No.2 i.e. Maruti Suzuki India Limited has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad whereby complaint filed by complainant Sunita Punjani was allowed with following directions to the opposite parties:
- to change the door of vehicle in question & fix the rusty part free of cost;
- to pay Rs.5,500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment; and
- to pay Rs.3,300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
- In her complaint, the complainant had pleaded that she had purchased Celerio VXI Green Car Model 2019 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 28.02.2019. Before taking delivery of the said vehicle, the complainant had already paid full and final payment on 26.02.2019 by way of cheque (after adjusting the amount of old car), which was duly delivered to opposite party No.1-M/s. Fairdeal Cars Pvt. Ltd. by the complainant but inspite of receiving full and final amount, they issued the invoice dated 28.02.2019 and delivered the car to the complainant on 03.03.2019. At the time of purchasing the car, opposite party No.2 briefed all features and specially focused on two years full warranty for Celerio car in total. Besides this, there was extended warranty of two years, for which, the complainant gave Rs.6,749/- as extra payment after which warranty period was extended upto the year 2023. After purchasing the car, the complainant got all the services including washing done from opposite party No.1. On 09.02.2020, when the car was delivered to the complainant at his home after servicing including washing, rust marks were seen on the bottom portion of the doors and when the complainant made complaint about the same to the delivery boy, he said that the door/parts of the car would be changed/replaced at the time of next service, which was likely to be due within the warranty period. The complainant visited opposite party No.1 for the purpose of servicing her car, being authorized service station of opposite party No.2 and the complainant apprised them about the abovesaid fact in the job card dated 25.01.2021 but at that time, opposite party No.2 clearly stated that they would not remove the above noted defect/rusted problem in the car of the complainant. After servicing the car of the complainant, opposite party No.1 issued invoice dated 25.01.2021 for Rs.7,432/- and the complainant paid the above said amount through paytm transaction whereas before issuing the above said invoice, the opposite parties sent message on her for total amount of Rs.5,700/- only. The complainant experienced the fraud and cheating done by opposite party No.1 when she found no paper floor mat in the car for which she was charged whereas the complainant told this point to the supervisor but of no use. The complainant sent an e-mail in this respect to the opposite parties. There was manufacturing defect in her car because at the time of selling the car, the opposite parties were aware of the above said fact but despite the same, the opposite parties delivered the defective car to the complainant. At the time of sale of the car, the opposite parties had received excess amount of Rs.500/- on account of FASTag but at that time, the opposite parties did not mention the code number in the said FASTag. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service and hence the complaint wherein she sought issuance of following directions to the opposite parties 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,
- pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, and
- pay Rs.11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice, none appeared for opposite party No.1, which was proceeded against ex parte. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance and filed written version wherein it refuted the claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had alleged that after service of the vehicle on 09.02.2020 and during the delivery, she 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 was also alleged that on the next visit i.e. on 25.01.2021, she had noticed 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 third free inspection service. Proper service was carried out and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. No rusting was concerned during the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant did not raise any concern to the workshop by any mode of communication post delivery of the vehicle. The said concern was reported after a year of the said visit when the vehicle was driven for more than 1603 kms. The complainant had failed to place any material on record to substantiate her 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 and left hand sides front doors. As the concern was due to external reasons, necessary repairs could not be 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 was only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 02 years or 40000 kms. from the date of sale. The said warranty was subject to certain terms and conditions besides 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 and left hand sides front doors. As the concern was due to external reasons, necessary repairs could not been carried out under warranty and would 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.
- The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties i.e. M/s. Fairdeal Cars Private Limited and another with the prayer to direct them to 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, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
- In support of her case, the complainant filed her affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and documents (Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-12). On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.2 filed affidavit (Exhibit R2/A) of Akhil Gupta, authorized representative of Maruti Suzuki India Limited and documents (Exhibit R2/1 to Exhibit R2/3.
- After hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint while issuing the aforementioned directions.
- Aggrieved of the impugned order, opposite party No.2 i.e. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Limited has filed the present appeal.
- Admittedly, the car in question was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 28.02.2019 and the AMC was also purchased by the complainant. After the passage of sometime, the complainant had noticed that the front door of the car got rusted. At the time of initial purchase of the vehicle, the extended warranty was also purchased by the complainant till 2023. After sometimes, the doors of the car got rusted and the complainant made a complaint to opposite parties No.1 & 2 but no one listened to her complaint. Ultimately, she was left with no other option but to file the complaint.
- Vide inspection report (Exhibit R2/3), it was mentioned that there was rusting due to long contact with water and moisture. Right hand side front door and left hand side front door were found rusted. However, the inspection report is bereft of the signature. Only name given is of Bhoopendra Kumar (Area Trainer), Kansai Nerolac. Being a trainer, he could not be an expert. He relied upon document (Ex.R2/1) i.e. Dealership agreement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2, which is principal to principal. The complainant had paid huge amount to the opposite parties while purchasing the vehicle. The opposite parties had made profit and the door was rusted without any reason. As such, there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
- In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore dismissed in limine.
- The statutory amount of Rs.4,400/- deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be disbursed in favour of the complainant against proper receipt and identification but in accordance with rules subject to appeal/revision, if any.
- Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
- A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the law. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
- File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.
(T.P.S. MANN) PRESIDENT (MANJULA) MEMBER Pronounced On: 12.04.2023 | |
