Date of filing:- 24/10/2019.
Date of Order:-28/05/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 88 of 2019.
Er. Sudarshan Samal, son of Pradumna Kumar Samal, aged about 22(twenty two) years, resident of Rangahar Pada, Ward No. 13(thirteen), Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town), Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- Gargson Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. A/66, NH-5, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Odisha-751003.
- Renault Sambalpur, Plot No. 835/3754, Mouza, Sambalpur Town, Unit 12, Remed, Sambalpur, Odisha-768006.
- Renault India Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Rd, T.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600017. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri P.K.Acharya, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one)
and No. 2(two):- Sri B.K.Purohit, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.3(three):- Sri C.R.Panda, Advocate with associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.28/05/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President:-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased one Renault KWID from the Opposite Party No.1(one) through Opposite Party No.2(two) bearing Chassis No. MEEBBA007J8614328, Engine No. B4DA404E145454 and Registration No. OD-17-Q-0064. On 24-09-2019 when the Complainant switched on the ignition keys the engine of the car emitted smoke and foul smell. The Complainant then opened the bonnet of the car and found the engine to be very hot emitting smoke and smell. The Complainant immediately reported the matter to the help line number of the Opposite Parties who deputed one staff from Opposite Party No.2(two) for verification. The staff issued a break down service report form dt. 24-09-2019 and took away the vehicle for necessary repairing. It may be started that by then the car had run for 5039(five thousand thirty nine)Kilometers. On the next date on-line repair order bearing No. ROSNJA20001386 Dt.25-09-2019 was generated by Opposite Party No.1(one) and made visible and made available to the Complainant in the mobile application of the Opposite Party No.3(three) installed in the mobile phone of the Complainant. Almost one month has elapsed from the date of taking of the vehicle the Opposite Parties have not returned the vehicle to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency and negligence in service. The Complainant had several communication with the Opposite Party through e-mail, but the Opposite Party evasively answered and avoided the main issue. Hence the Complainant filed this case before this Commission.
2) The case of the Opposite Parties is that Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared and filed version. Opposite Party No.3(three) appeared and filed its version individually. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) admitted that the Renault Kwid Car was purchased by Sudarshan Samal on 31-12-2018 and the vehicle was registered as OD-17-Q-0064. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) submitted that on 25-09-2019 the vehicle was received vide reporting order No. ROSMJA20001386 and it was promised to return the vehicle on 16-10-2019. On inspection of the vehicle it was found that the clutch plate was to be removed. The clutch was fitted on 05-10-2019. But after fitment of the clutch kit, the problem was not resolved. So Opposite Party No.2(two) was taken the help of Renault technical team and arranged clutch Actuator Motor from Co. dealer on 12-10-2019. But after fitment of the same the concern was not resolved. So again Opposite Party No.2(two) reordered a clutch kit on 16-10-2019 through VOR for the specific order as per guidance of Renault technical team and received the part on 22-10-2019. Due to Dushera Vacation the order was placed on 16-10-2019. After fitment of the part the vehicle was ready for delivery on 23-10-2019. The Opposite Party No.2(two) requested the customer to take the vehicle on 24-10-2019, but the owner Sudarshan Samal refused to come to the garage. Hence the driver of the Opposite Party No.2(two) made delivery of the vehicle in the doorstep of the owner on 25-10-2019 but the owner refused to sing the satisfaction note. No amount was charged from the owner of the vehicle as the vehicle was under the warranty. There is no any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.3(three) submitted that Opposite Party No.3(three) is a reputed manufacturer of Renault cars. The Opposite Party No.3(three) sells its vehicles to its authorized dealers. The dealer therefore is the appointed salesman and serviceman of Renault car company. It is pertinent to mention herein that the answering Opposite Party No.3(three) is only engaged in the manufacturing of the vehicle and beyond that the answering Opposite Party No.3(three) has no role to play in the sale or service of car in question. Hence, even if the allegations made by the Complainant are presumed to be true for the sake of argument, the alleged violation as per the Consumer Protection Act have been committed by the authorized local dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) from whom the Complainant purchased the impugned vehicle. Therefore the present complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No.3(three) for want of cause of action. When there is no cause of action against the answering Opposite Party, the present complaint against Opposite Party No.3(three) should be dismissed.
3) Perused the complaint petition, version and documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed :-
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in service ?
- Whether Complainant is entitled to get relief ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) After perusal of record it reveals that the Complainant had purchased one vehicle model KWID by paying ₹4,80,499/-(Rupees four lakh eighty thousand four hundred ninety nine)only to the Opposite Party No.1(one), Gargson Automobiles Private Ltd. The Opposite Party No.1(one) issued invoice number SINVBUJA19000381 dated 31-12-2018. After 9(nine) months from the date of purchase on 24-09-2019 the engine of the car became hot and emitted smoke and smell. After getting information from the Complainant the Opposite Party No.2(two) took away the vehicle for repairing and issued a break down service form on 24-09-2019. The allegation of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No.2(two) did not return the vehicle after repairing. As per the submission of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant on 25-10-2019 and no amount was charged from the Complainant. It is the only submission of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). No document was filed in that regard. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) mentioned a number of reasons of delay in repairing. So it is proved that the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not deliver the vehicle in time. The onus lies on the Opposite Party to prove that the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant. But in the present case the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) fails to prove that the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are deficiency in service and fails to provide service to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1(one) as the dealer and Opposite Party No.2(two) as the service provider are deficient in service. The Opposite Party No.3(three) as the manufacturer has no liability in this case. The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2(two)
5) For deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), the Complainant is entitled to get relief. The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order is passed:-
O R D E R
6) The Complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and dismissed against Opposite Party No.3(three). The Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to hand over the vehicle in good condition to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Further Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are jointly and severally directed to pay ₹40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only compensation for deficiency in service and ₹10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses to the Complainant, failing which, the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of May 2024.
Supply free copies to the Parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt.Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
(Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
