State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
O.C. Tandon vs Maruti Udyog Limited on 24 November, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 24-11-2008 Complaint Case No.C-104/2001 O.C. Tandon, -Complainant 20, Vakil Lane, Ferozshah Road, Versus 1. Maruti Udyog Limited, -Opposite Party No.1 Regional Office (North), Through 6th Floor, Hansalaya Bldg., Mr. Rakesh Aggarwal 12, Barakhamba Road, Advocate. New Delhi-110001. 2. Maruti Udyog Limited -Opposite Party No.2 Palam-Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana) 3. Competent Automobles -Opposite Party No.3 Competent House, Through F-14, Connaught Place, Praveen Maheshwari New Delhi-110001. Advocate. CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) On the allegation of having been sold a defective Belino Car manufactured by the OP that suffered from manufacturing defect and the defects pointed have not been rectified, the complainant has filed the instant complaint and sought the following reliefs:-
(i) That M/s Maruti Udyog Limited through their agent, Competent Motors, may be asked to replace my car and give me a new piece or in the alternative to take the car back and refund my money.
(ii) That M/s Maruti Udyog Limited and Competent Motors may be asked to reimburse my expenses regarding taking the car to the various workshops as desired by them and the cost of damages is estimated at Rs. 1,500/-.
(iii) That further damages of Rs. 5,000/- may be awarded for mental torture and intentional delay in not replying to the letters and not attending to the various services which they were required to perform within the warranty period.
(iv) Cost of the complaint may also be awarded.
2. Allegations of the complainant, in brief, are that he purchased a Belino Car on 12th April 2000 for Rs. 6,74,025/-. From the date of purchase there a a wide gap between the chassis and the bumper and other lower portion of the car. The gap was so much that it was visible to a naked eye and could be seen from a distance. He immediately informed the OP No.3-Competent Automobiles Limiteds service division at Naraina and the Company at Gurgaon about the defects and requested them to remove the defects and as per directions he took the car to Sikand Co. for necessary corrections.
3. That after working on the car for about two hours, they asked the complainant to take the car to Competent Automobiles Ltd.
The car was then taken to Competent Motors workshop at Ring Road and was informed that they could not do anything with the car to remove the defects and asked to take the car to the company workshop at Naraina. The car was taken to Company workshop at Naraina and apart from the above defects that were pointed out, there were other defects also, like rattling in the left hand side of the front door, defect in suspension, noise in the steering wheel etc. The workshop at Naraina asked the complainant to visit again but they could not remove some of the defects and also verbally informed that the gap was a manufacturing defect and could not be removed. As far as other defects were concerned, they did not have relevant parts to replace them.
4. That numerous complaints were made both to the factory and to their workshop at Naraina. At last they sent one of their mechanics along with a person from Sikand & Co. who took the car to the workshop of Sikand & Co. along with complainants driver and made efforts to remove the defects for over two hours and thereafter they informed the complainant that they did not have the necessary parts and that they would visit the complainant again and will try to rectify the defects.
5. That till date in spite of number of letters to them, they neither gave in writing that the car had manufacturing defects nor they extended the warranty period nor are coming out with the parts to remove the defects. The warranty period of the car expired on 12-04-2001 and in spite of several letters to them, they have not been able to either replace the car or remove the defects. The entire correspondence written by the complainant to the factory and to their sales office at Delhi are annexed as Annexures C to J. the OP-M/s Maruti Udyog Limited had only once written to the complainant and thereafter they have not cared to reply to any of the letters written by the complainant and only asked to take the car to Sikand & Co. who would remove the defects.
6. On behalf of OP No.1, the following pleas have been taken :-
(i) That during the warranty and extended warranty period, the vehicle in question was properly attended to and applicable benefits under warranty of Maruti Udyog Limited were given to the complainant and the present complaint having been filed after the expiry of warranty is not maintainable.
(ii) That there was no privty of sales contract between the complainant and the OPs.
The claim of replacement of vehicle or reimbursement of its costs if beyond the scope and ambit of warranty which is a contractual stipulation agreed to by the complainant and an integral part of his sale contract with the dealer from whom, he purchased the vehicle.
(iii) It is denied that any gap was noticed by the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Falsity of this allegation is evident as the complainant accepted the delivery of the vehicle without pointing out any such gap between the chasis and the bumper of the vehicle. The complainant brought its vehicle for 1st free service on 10-05-2000 for running repair, on 26-08-2000 for second free service at a mileage of 5005 kms to the workshop of Maruti Sales & Service, Delhi when no defect with respect to any gap between the chassis and the bumper was pointed out by the complainant. On 31-03-2001 the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of Maruti Sales & Service Delhi whereby it was demanded that rear bumper gap be fixed up and shockers be checked. The said workshop attended to the said demanded repairs and found that rear bumper was damaged. Quite clearly, the said damage was not attributable to the faulty material or workmanship at the time of manufacture. On 26-06-2001 the complainant brought the vehicle at the said workshop whereby the rear bumper, wipers and door knobs of the vehicle were replaced under warranty at no costs to the complainant either towards the price of the said parts including bumper.
After said replacement of the bumper the representative of the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after executing a satisfaction note. The copies of the said job cards and the satisfaction note are annexed as Annexure A.
(iv) The veracity of averments with regard to the complainant allegedly having informed Competent Automobiles about the alleged gap and demand of repair is falsified by the fact that the complainant visited Competent Automobiles on 20-05-2000 for checking of steering noise only and the same was checked and found to be OK.
The complainant never informed about the gap between the chassis and the bumper to OP No.3.
(v) It is denied that the Naraina workshop ever informed the complainant that the alleged gap was a manufacturing defect as alleged which could not be removed.
(vi) That the vehicle did not have any manufacturing defect as alleged. It was finally checked and found OK at the end of OP No.2. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle from OP No.3 after a Pre Delivery Inspection from it without any protest or demur.
(vii) That on 14-05-2000 complainant was asked to bring his vehicle to Sikand & Co. by OP No.2 for further checkup. On 05-02-2001 complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of Sikand & Co. where the rear bumper fitting was made under warranty without charging any amount from the complainant after which the complainant took the delivery of his vehicle.
7. On behalf of the OP one Mr. S. Ravi Aiyar, Company Secretary and Chief Legal Officer filed affidavit supporting aforesaid version of the OPs.
8. However, the complainant denied that the car was fully attended to. According to him the delivery of the car was given to him on 19-11-2001 at about 9 oclock in the night as would be seen from letter dated 4th December 2001 and as such the car could not be inspected by him at that time and the next day after delivery of the car was a Diwali holiday and he contacted Shri S.K. choudhary, Asstt. G.M. (Service-3) of MUL on the first available day and it was pointed out to him that many defects were not removed. Shri S.K. Choudhary sent his assistant Shri Anil Kumar to complainants office. As per their letter dated 3rd December 2001, they claimed to have done denting and painting jobs (including denting and painting labour and materials) for which OPs had charged Rs. 18,700/- though in fact no denting and painting job had been done. According to the complainant the letter marked Exhibit RW supposed to have been written by him was brought duly typed by OPs from their office and he was asked to sign the settlement letter first and then only the car would be delivered to him. Replacement of some parts as alleged by them clearly proves that the car was defective and was not repaired within the warranty period when sent the same to their workshop. Warranty was given for one year or 40,000 kilometers of the running of the car, whichever was earlier. The car was taken to OPs when it had hardly run 28,000 kilometers although the period of one year had expired and it was explained to them that the car was not extensively used in view of the case pending before the Consumer Court and it was also pointed out to them that the brakes had gone wrong as could be seen from a copy of letter and they charged a sum of Rs. 4,600/- for repairing the car which also proves that they were in the habit of putting defective materials in the cars and then sell the same. Complainant vide letter dated 23rd May 2002 brought to the notice of the OPs that the steering wheel was making a noise and that a rod which was missing was never put in the vehicle and unless this rod is put in the vehicle, it would continue to make noise. They however never removed the defects.
9. As is apparent from the aforesaid conspectus of facts, various documents and communications exchanged between the parties as well as affidavit of the representative of the OPs it is manifestly clear that the claim of the OP as per their letter dated 03-12-2001 that they had done denting and painting job for which they charged Rs. 18,700/- was false as the comparison of Ex. RW 1/2 upon which the OPs are relying upon heavily itself shows that it was brought by the OP from their office and complainant was asked to sign settlement letter first and thereafter they delivered the car to the complainant and the replacement of certain parts of the car by the OP shows that the car was defective and was not duly repaired during the warranty period.
10. We have taken a view that it is not necessary that a vehicle can be declared defective only if it suffers from manufacturing defect. The inference of vehicle being defective can be drawn from various job cards. Whenever a consumer goes for a brand new vehicle instead of purchasing a second and third hand vehicle he does so to avoid any hardship or inconvenience that a second hand or third hand vehicle gives and the minimum expectation of the consumer who goes for the brand new vehicle is that it will not give trouble for two-three years or so and if he is taking the vehicle every two or three days or once or twice a month he does so at the cost of his precious time or business loss or financial loss etc, and at the cost of emotional sufferings, physical discomfort etc.
11. The quality, standard, purity and potency of every goods has to be tested on the anvil of word defect as provide by section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to this provision any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods, amounts to defect.
12. However, in the instant case OP is relying upon the satisfactory note by the complainant. Even if that note is taken into consideration still the complainant has suffered due to various defects in the vehicle particularly the wide gap between chassis and bumper and replacement of certain defective parts. Also even if the dealer and the staff attended to all the defects as is apparent from the job cards, still the complainant is entitled for compensation as to having suffered due to having been supplied a defective vehicle, the defects of which may have been removed or rectified subsequently. These circumstances have put the complainant to mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings, financial loss etc. and therefore needs to be compensated adequately as the word compensation has very wide connotation and includes in its fold each and every suffering like mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort, emotional sufferings and actual loss and expected loss.
13. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we deem that lump sum compensation to be paid by OP No.1 to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation shall meet the ends of justice.
14. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
16. Announced on 24th November 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj