Defects Caused By Car Owner's Negligence Not Covered Under Warranty, Bilaspur District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki

Brief Facts:

The Complainant owned a car manufactured by Maruti Suzuki and purchased from Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. (“Seller”). He bought an extended warranty for ₹ 9805.80/-, valid from 28.02.2020 to 27.02.2025 or up to one lakh kilometers, whichever is earlier. In June 2021, defects arose in the car, prompting the Complainant to take it to the service center. Initially, the service center assured free repairs within the warranty period but later presented escalating repair estimates, eventually demanding ₹ 59,635/- after initially proposing ₹ 2,19,783/-. Despite protesting, the Complainant paid ₹ 60,000/- in advance and received only ₹ 365/- back upon completion of repairs. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (“District Commission”) against Maruti Suzuki, the Service Center, and the Seller.

The Seller and the Service Center admitted to the purchase of the extended warranty and the subsequent car repair. They attributed the engine seizure to a hydrostatic lock, which was not covered under the warranty. They argued that they offered a 50% discount on repairs as a goodwill gesture for the Complainant's regular patronage, which he declined. Ultimately, they charged ₹ 59,635/- for repairs, refunding ₹ 365/- after receiving ₹ 60,000/- from the Complainant. Therefore, they contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Maruti Suzuki did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant alleged defects in his car but did not specify these in detail in his complaint or subsequent affidavit. However, he admitted that the car was not in running condition when brought to the service center. In response, the Service Centre explained that the engine seized due to a hydrostatic lock, which was not a manufacturing defect but was caused by water entering the engine during use.

The District Commission referred to the terms and conditions of the extended warranty, specifically Condition No.2(h), which excluded coverage for defects caused by negligence, abuse, or flooding. Given that the hydrostatic lock was caused by water ingress, a condition explicitly excluded under the warranty, the District Commission held that the Complainant was not entitled to free repairs.

Consequently, the District Commission held that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Service Centre and Maruti Suzuki. It held that the defect in the engine likely occurred due to negligence on the Complainant's part. Therefore, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Ankush Sharma vs General Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Ors.

Case Number: 105/2021

Date of Pronouncement: June 18^th, 2024