CHENNAI: An auto major and its dealer have been ordered by a consumer court here to compensate the user for unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service besides causing mental agony. A bench of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North), Chennai comprising R Mohandoss, president, and Y Malliga, member, passed the order on a complaint by S Ahimsairaj, a resident of Ambattur here. Popular Vehicles (dealer) and Maruti Suzuki India Limited were the respondents. In his complaint, Ahimsairaj said he bought a Swift diesel VDI variant car on September 25, 2009. After several months, he found nil oil in the engine. The dealer detected a leak in the turbo charger lubricating line and replaced it. Also, oil was filled up to requisite level. There was, however, emission of black smoke and abnormal noise. Although the turbo charger was replaced, other parts in the lubrication system like the crankshaft journals - which need a specific quantity of oil at all times - ought to have sustained severe wear and tear. This could lessen the car’s life span, it was contended. Hence, Ahimsairaj wanted replacement of the car or refund of money. He moved the consumer court seeking relief. The court considered if there had been any manufacturing defect, negligence and deficiency in service and the extent to which the complainant is entitled for relief. The carmaker’s contention that there were no complaints from any quarters as they made ‘superior quality’ vehicles is disproved. “The company (Maruti) had recalled 1000 vehicles including Swift for manufacturing defects.”Though it was claimed by the dealer that the vehicle was roadworthy, the car consumed more oil within 10,000 km. The engine had consumed 150 ml of oil during a 280 km drive. It proved the manufacturing defect.“Only because of the defect, the turbo charger had to be changed within 8,000 kms,” the court said.Expert opinion and exhibits corroborated the complainant’s contention that black smoke emission and reduction in engine oil level were only due to the manufacturing defect. “Heavy black smoke emission itself shows that the parts that supply lubricants to engine ought to have been defective. Only because of that, the engine oil mixed with fuel and emitted heavy smoke, something that can be expected only in a car that had been re-bored. Charge of manufacturing defect is established,” the court observed. Negligence and deficiency charges are established in not completely rectifying the defect completely, the court added and directed Maruti to replace the car. The respondents were also asked to pay Rs 80,000 to the complainant (Rs 50,000 towards compensation for unfair trade practice, negligence and deficiency in service, Rs 25,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards cost of court proceedings) within six weeks.
Comments
0 comment