Maruti directed to pay Rs 80,000 relief for selling a defected car
For selling a car with manufacturing defect, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Maruti Suzuki India Ltd to either give a new car to the customer or remove the defect, and also imposed a fine of `80,000.chandigarh Updated: Apr 24, 2015 09:15 IST
For selling a car with manufacturing defect, the district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Maruti Suzuki India Ltd to either give a new car to the customer or remove the defect, and also imposed a fine of `80,000.
Pooja Rani, resident of Manimajra, had approached the forum against the manufacturer for selling a defective car. The complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift-ZDI car from Berkeley Automobiles Limited, Panchkula, on December 20, 2012. The defect had occurred when complainant's husband Mohinder Kumar took the car to Leh on July 28, 2013, where he runs a service station.
The complainant submitted that on way to Leh, the car broke down near Srinagar and her husband was forced to stay at Batod village. Then he somehow managed to reach his residence in Leh.
Mohinder Kumar called at the customer care and he was advised to take the car to a service station at Leh where the manager informed him that their mechanic was on a 15-day leave. He again visited the service station on August 14 and was told that diesel filter of the car needed to be replaced, which was not available in Leh.
Mohinder Kumar lodged a complaint to Maruti Suzuki India via email on August 15, and a reminder was also sent on August 29 but to no avail. On October 23, the complainant and her husband had been visiting Shimla to attend a function when the car again broke down at the Parwanoo bypass and they had to take the car back to Modern Automobiles in Chandigarh through a toying van.
The complainant was informed that the cylinder head/engine head required to be replaced to which she refused.
Pavinder Singh Bedi, council of the complainant, moved an application before the forum to appoint team of experts to prove manufacturing defects in the car. A committee of three members of PEC University of Technology was constituted. The committee found that the defect in the running of the vehicle could be attributed to a manufacturing defect.
In its defence, the company refuted all the allegations and submitted that they had delivered a perfect road worthy vehicle.
The forum, headed by president Dharampal and members Anil Sharma and Anita Kapoor, in order stated the company should either provide a brand new car of the same make to the petitioner without any payment or get the manufacturing defect removed at its own cost and to the satisfaction of the complainant.
The company was fined of `75,000 to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment, and that amount should include the amount of `22,472 which was charged by PEC for expert opinion. The company has also been asked to pay `5,000 as the cost of litigation to the complainant.