Failure To Repair Within Promised Time Coupled With Additional Car Damages Post-Repair, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Maruti Suzuki And Its Dealer Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant purchased a new Maruti Ertiga VDI BS IV car, manufactured by Maruti Suzuki (“Manufacturer”), from its Dealer. Following a minor accident, the Complainant sought service from the branch office of the Dealer, for a check-up. The service centre identified a small bend affecting wheel alignment and recommended an insurance claim. The Complainant agreed to the service and the insurance claim. However, after agreeing, the Complainant encountered delays and, a lack of communication, and discovered additional damages which were not initially documented.

The Complainant made several communications with the Dealer and the Manufacturer. However, he didn't receive a satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Maruti Suzuki and its Dealer.

The Manufacturer contended that the Complainant unfairly implicated it and stated there was no direct involvement of it in the alleged issues. It argued that it has a limited responsibility to warranty services. It accused the Complainant of misusing the legal process for harassment and unjust gain.

The Dealer contended the car was involved in a major accident with a road median, which necessitated accident repair work. It clarified that after an initial inspection, the Complainant was informed that major body work was needed due to extensive damage. It admitted that there was a delay in repair due to the unavailability of parts, which it had to order, but argued that it kept the Complainant informed. It denied allegations of misconduct or threats by its staff.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held Maruti Suzuki and its Dealer liable for deficiency in services for failure to fulfil the promised repair within a reasonable timeframe, coupled with the additional damages to the car post-service. The decision was based on the photographic evidence presented by the Complainant, which depicted the condition of the vehicle before and after service.

Furthermore, the District Commission referred to the decision in Hyundai Motor India V. Harpal Singh [IV (2023) CPJ 416 (NC)], where it was held that there is an obligation on manufacturers and service centres to provide quality service and be held accountable to consumers. It held that the Complainant endured undue inconvenience and financial burdens due to the repeated failures to address the defect.

Moreover, there was a direct involvement of the Dealer and the service centre, which acted as representatives of the Manufacturer. Therefore, the District Commission held that this indirect involvement of the Manufacturer through dealership agreements highlighted the Manufacturer's accountability for deficiencies.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the Manufacturer and its Dealer to pay a compensation of ₹ 1,50,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Additionally, the District Commission directed them to pay a sum of ₹ 25,000/- to the Complainant for the litigation costs.