Failing To Provide Required Service On The Purchased Vehicle Is Deficiency In Service : NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Maruti Suzuki liable for deficiency in service and held that failing to service a vehicle properly constitutes a deficiency in service. Brief Facts of the Case The Complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio from the Maruti Suzuki India/manufacturer, which was facilitated by an...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Maruti Suzuki liable for deficiency in service and held that failing to service a vehicle properly constitutes a deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Complainant purchased a Maruti Suzuki Celerio from the Maruti Suzuki India/manufacturer, which was facilitated by an authorized dealer/Bharath Auto Care. Immediately after the purchase, the Complainant noticed irregularities in the engine, characterized by uneven and rough sounds. This issue was reported to the dealer, who assured the Complainant it would be addressed during the first free service. However, the dealer failed to identify or repair the engine issue. Later, when the Complainant attempted to start the vehicle, the engine failed to start despite multiple attempts. This was reported to the dealer, who sent mechanics to address the issue, but they also failed to start the vehicle. Consequently, the vehicle was towed to the dealer's service center. Without informing the Complainant of the specific issue, the dealer issued a job card estimating the cost of replacing spare parts at Rs. 25,000 and labor charges at Rs. 10,000, despite the vehicle being under warranty. After the Complainant signed the job card, the dealer made unauthorized additions to the job sheet, falsely indicating that engine oil was mixed with water for engine overhaul and changed the date on the job card. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint in the District Forum and sought a refund of the amount paid for the defective vehicle. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the dealer and the manufacturer to pay the complainant Rs. 6,29,669 with interest @8% per annum. Aggrieved by the District Forum's order, the dealer and the manufacturer appealed to the State Commission of Karnataka, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Forum's order. Consequently, the dealer and the manufacturer approached the National Commission with a revision petition.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The dealer argued that the district and the state commissions erred by neglecting the absence of evidence or expert opinion provided by the complainant to substantiate the alleged vehicle defect. It was argued that the commissions mischaracterized the case as a deficiency of service rather than addressing alleged vehicle defects. The dealer contended that the commissions overlooked the job cards presented by the complainant and failed to consider the significant distance covered by the vehicle before the proceedings, suggesting potential misuse or wear and tear.
The manufacturer argued that the lower forums erred by not seeking expert opinion as mandated and overlooked that manufacturers sell vehicles to dealers who then sell them to customers and are responsible for service/repair/warranty obligations. The manufacturer is only liable for replacing defective parts under warranty policy. It was argued that the issue pertained to the engine being seized due to water in the oil, which couldn't have been logically attributed to a manufacturing defect. The manufacturer contended that the lower forums erred by directing a refund of vehicle cost without following the prescribed procedure and appreciated that even if the engine was seized, it was repairable by replacing parts.
Observations by the National Commission
The Commission observed the dealer displayed a deficiency in service by failing to execute the requisite service on the vehicle and attempting to manipulate the complainant through such modifications without sufficient justification. Citing the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr., it was emphasized that the onus to prove the defect is on the complainant, and expert evidence is necessary to substantiate claims of a manufacturing defect, which was absent in this case. The Commission highlighted that the complainant failed to substantiate a defect in the vehicle due to the lack of expert evidence or technical reports. It dissented from the lower forums' findings of a manufacturing defect. However, the complainant was entitled to relief on the grounds of service deficiency by the dealer. The Commission found the assertion by the dealer that the complainant mixed water with the engine oil to be illogical and unsupported by evidence, thus giving the benefit of the doubt to the complainant. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors emphasized construing the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act in favor of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment. The Commission observed that the complainant purchased the vehicle for Rs. 5,02,175 and approached the dealer for repairs after about six months, and the vehicle had covered 3063 km. Assessing the depreciated value of the vehicle, it was noted that a 5% depreciation was applicable, resulting in a depreciated value of Rs. 4,77,067.
The National Commission ruled that the District Commission's order of payment needed modification, as it had ordered Rs. 6,29,669 with interest without requiring the return of the vehicle, which remained with the complainant. The commission directed the dealer and the manufacturer to pay Rs. 4,77,067 with interest at 6% per annum. Consequently, the complainant was directed to return the vehicle back to the dealer.
Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Henry D'souza
Case Number: R.P. No. 1614/2022