IMPORTANT POINT
Due to paucity of time, Dealer had to handover the vehicle to the Complainant so there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.

ORDER

M. Shreesha, Presiding Member

Challenge in these Revision Petitions No. 84 a d 85 of 2019 is to the common impugned order dated 26.09.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”) in FA/1211/2017 and FA/1233/2017, preferred by Prime Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Dealer”) and M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Manufacturer”), respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeals preferred by the Dealer and the Manufacturer and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur Second (in short “the District Forum”).

2. Briefly, put the facts relevant to the case are that the Complainant purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire Car on 25.02.2012, for which he was given an extended warranty up to 23.02.2016 or 80,000 kilometers, by charging an additional amount of Rs.8,040. It is the Complainant’s case that routine service was conducted by the dealer on 11.02.2013, by charging an amount of Rs.4,203/- and the following defects were point out:

“Water pump leakage, brake pad need to be changed, RH side mirror damage, bumper light not ok, all body dent and scratch and no wiper blade”

3. It is the Complainant’s case that the aforenoted defects were not rectified as the Dealer did not have the relevant spare parts and therefore the Complainant was asked to bring back his car and wait for the information from the service centre. On 13.02.2015, the Complainant was informed that the water pump to be fitted had arrived. The Complainant’s car on 20.02.2015, while returning from the Complainant’s village was broke down as the pump of the vehicle got jammed. The same was informed to the service centre and the vehicle was picked up by a crane and towed to the workshop on the same day. The Complainant left his vehicle and went on the next day i.e. 21.02.2015, but the service centre insisted that the Complainant sign his consent for the ‘paid service’. As the vehicle was within warranty period, the Complainant refused to do so and unable to bear the pressure, the Complainant took advise of his Counsel and got issued a legal notice on 02.03.2015, but received no response. The Dealer raised an estimate of Rs.1,70,293/- for repairing the engine and pump. The vehicle was serviced and an amount of Rs.1,65,777/- was paid by the Complainant and the receipt for the same dated 18.03.2015 was given. The Complainant sent the claim form to the Manufacturer on 19.03.2015 claiming under warranty an amount of Rs.1,65,777/-, but there was no response.

4. It is averred by the Complainant that the Service Centre misinformed the Complainant and did not conduct the repairs completely on 11.02.2015, stating that the water pump was unavailable on MGA basis and advised the Complainant to use the vehicle carefully and he was forced to take delivery with the leaking water pump. It is pleaded that had the leaking water pump been repaired on that very day i.e. 11.02.2015, the incident would not have happened. Hence, the Complaint seeking refund of Rs.1,65,777/- with interest, compensation and costs.

5. The Manufacturer filed its Written Version stating that the water pump is a vital part of the engine as it keeps the engine cool and any defective water pump may result in engine seizure. It is averred that the Complainant drove the vehicle from 46,147 kilometers to 47,507 kilometers (360 kilometres) with a defective water pump, even after communication on 13.02.2015, which is highly negligent of the Complainant and hence the repair and replacement of the engine do falls beyond the scope of the extended warranty and the Complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and negligence. It is averred that from the job card dated 21.02.2015, it is evident that the Complainant had approved the estimate under his signature. It is further averred that the Complainant did not agree to leave the vehicle on 11.02.