BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28thJune 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.49/2015
(Admitted on 27.1.2015)
Mr.J.A.Melwyn D Souza,
Aged 53 years,
R/at D.No.15.17.929/4,
Precious, 6th Cross,
Shivbagh, Kadri,
Mangalore 575002.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri AKB)
VERSUS
- M/s Renault India Pvt.Ltd,
Head Office, ASV Ramana Towers,
#37.38, 4th floor,
Venkatanarayan Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600017,
Represented by its authorised signatory.
- M/s Renault India Pvt. Ltd,
Regional Office 502, 5th floor,
Town Centre II, Sakinaka,
Andheri Kurla Road,
Andheri(East), Mumabi 400059,
Represented by its authorised signatory.
- M/s T.V SundaramIyengar and sons Ltd,
Renault Mangalore, DivDev Building,
Opp: Karavali College, kottaraChowki,
Mangalore 575013.
Represented by its authorised signatory.
- M/s T.V.SundaramIyengar and sons ltd,
Regd. Office: T.V.S.Building,
7.B West Veli Street, Madurai 625001.
Represented by its authorised signatory.
..…. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by Sri. KSNR)
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.3 and 4 by Sri. K.P)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- This complaint is filed under section 12of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant by availing bank loan finance had purchased the Renault Duster Diesel HP RxL, HPE2D Model, pearl Supreme white Colour, bearing chassis No. MEEHSRAWA072915, and engine no. EO85741, from Opposite Party no.3 and took delivery of the vehicle on 14.11.2014. The complainant had paid the entire price quoted by the Opposite Parties for sum of Rs.9,56,633/ and other charges demanded. The vehicle was supposed to have undergone all pre delivery inspection in good faith, and honestly believing the name and fame of the Opposite Parties the complainant took delivery of the vehicle. The very first impression and feeling that the complainant and his family experienced is the intolerable, unpleasant smell inside the vehicle, thinking that since it is a new vehicle, the plastic parts, or paints may emanate such smell, as told by the Opposite Party No.3. Even at the time of the complainant experienced that many of the electrical systems like power windows, central locking etc. were not working properly. The next day i.e. 15.11.2014 was fixed for registration of the vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority and accordingly it was registered. On 16.11.2014, the complainant and his family wanted to go for a short drive to the utter dismay of the complainant, the complainant and his family could not enter the vehicle and the bad smell was so serious and nauseating that on opening the door they could not enter the vehicle. They had to keep the doors open and wait for some time for the nauseating smell to subside before they could enter into the said vehicle. In order to find out from where exactly the foul smell is emanating, with covered nose, the complainant managed to remove the plastic covers of the seats and the complainant found a dead, decomposed, rotten rodent underneath the rear seat same was intimated to the Opposite Party no.3 vide letter dated 17.11.2014 sent by Email dated 18.11.2014. The Opposite Party had taken a little care in keeping the vehicle in their yards, and had they taken little care while conducting their pre delivery inspection, this situation would not have arisen at all. When the complainant took back the vehicle to Opposite Party no.3 on 17.11.2014. on examination, Opposite Party no.3 found that the foam of the rear seat was damaged beyond repair, and even the electrical wiring throughout the vehicle had been damaged i.e. the wiring were all eaten up by rodents. The complainant then realised that the improper electrical functioning of the power windows, door locks etc was the result of this damage to the wiring. Fortunately, no short circuit, or fire accident occurred when the complainant and his family drove the vehicle and may be on account of minimum usage no untoward accident had occurred. When the complainant refused to take back the said vehicle or be replaced with a new vehicle, the Opposite Party no.3 agreed to only to change the rear seat, drain pipe and the wiring. Subsequently, Opposite Party no.3 informed the complainant to collect the said vehicle the complainant took the vehicle under protest on 24.11.2014. The complainant came to know that vehicles of the opposite parties are piled up at open yard, open for rain and sun, near a place called Panjimogaru without any safety measures. Rodents or even snakes or any such other creatures can easily get inside the vehicles and cause damage. In order to make quick bucks, without conducting proper inspection, the vehicles are just water washed and delivered to the customer. Therefore the Opposite Party have committed deficiency in service.Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant before this forum under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986(here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Fora to the Opposite Parties toa sum of Rs.4,00,000/ by way towards compensation and damages towards harassment, stress and mental agony and such other reliefs.
II. Version Notice served to the opposite parties by RPAD, Opposite Parties filed version.The complainant has falsely implicated the Renault India pvt. Ltd Head office and Renault India pvt.ltd Regional Office are not necessary parties to the complaint. It is evident from the complaint and complainants allegations are against the Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Party No.4, therefore, making it clear that the Opposite Party no.1 and the Opposite Party no.2 are not necessary parties to the complaint. The complainant has falsely implicated the opposite parties with a malafide intention of causing them wrongful loss while seeking wrongful gain.The complainant had purchased the vehicle from the Opposite Party no.3, the relationship between the opposite party no.1 and 2, and that of Opposite Party no.3 is of Principal to Principal relationship. The Opposite Party no.3 is not the agent of the opposite party no.1 and 2. The relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer is a principal to principal relationship, therefore the dealer is not the agent of the manufacturer, thereby absolving the manufacturer from all liability for any act committed by the dealer.The version of the complainant that the vehicle was supposed to have undergone all pre delivery inspection. This statement has been framed in a manner as to mislead, because in fact the complainant himself was present for the pre delivery inspection, and the entire process of the pre delivery inspection happened in front of his eyes. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant, as mentioned in his complaint, had purchased the vehicle based on the name and fame of the opposite parties. Such name and fame has only been earned by the parties after providing customers with exemplary and honest services, consistently over a period of time. There Opposite Parties have in no way induced the complainant to buy the vehicle, through the means of any misleading techniques. The complainant states that he experience an intolerable smell emanating from the vehicle during the pre delivery inspection. He further states that he thought that the vehicle being a new one, the said smell might have owed its existence to the plastic parts or the paint. This seems to be pure concoction on the part of the complainant, because there seems no plausible reason as to why he would take the delivery of a vehicle if a foul smell would be emanating from it. Further the plastic parts or paint of a new vehicle do not emanate foul odours. The plausible true set of events seems to be that the fouls odour, if any, would have started after the complainant had bought the vehicle and taken it home, as no reasonable person would purchase a vehicle which is emanating foul odour. During that time they experienced the malfunctioning of the various electrical systems of the car, such as the power windows and central locking.Opposite Party no.3 and 4 filed version submitted that the complainant has purchased Duster car from the Opposite Party no.3 at Mangalore. The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle after verifying the satisfying with the vehicle. The Opposite Party no.3 had taken sufficient care in the yard to protect the vehicles. It is denied that a rotten rodent was inside the car and caused damage to the car. All the allegations in the complaint are denied. The car was in the custody of complainant from 14.11.2014 till 17.11.2014. The damage to the car if any was due to the negligence on the part of complainant. The complainant brought the car to Opposite Party no.3 on 17.11.2014 complaining that Opposite Party no.3 has delivered rat bitten vehicle. The car was in parking area of complainant for three days and the rat biting has not happened before delivery. As per demand made by complainant the Opposite Party no.3 opened job card and repaired the vehicle. After repairs Opposite Party no.3 informed the complainant to take the vehicle who has taken the delivery of vehicle 24.11.2014 in good condition without making any payment. The complainant wanted Opposite Party no.3 to pay compensation. Since Opposite Party refused to pay the same the complainant has issued the notice by making all short of false allegations hence prays for dismissal.
III. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr.J.A.Melwyn D Souza, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C11 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Prabhu Krishnan (RW1) Manager, also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R3 as detailed in the annexure here below.Mr. Damien Gignoux (RW2), also filed affidavit evidence.
IV. In view of the above said facts, the points for arise for our consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant proved that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i) :Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
V. POINTS No. (i) and (ii):The complainant purchased the car from Opposite Party no.3 dealer for a sum of Rs.9,56,633/ as per Ex.C1 and C2 which is not disputed by the Opposite Party. The complainant took delivery on 14.11.2014 and at the time of delivery, the complainant and his family felt bad smell inside the vehicle, but Opposite Party no.3 staff Mr.Preetham and Mr.Prabhu Krishna told the complainant that the same could be due to plastic parts or paints from the new vehicle. After drove the vehicle to the complainant residence, he experienced problems with electrical system and central lock not working properly. On 15.11.2014 the vehicle was fixed for registration but the bad smell still continued. On 16.11.2014 the complainant and his family wanted to go out for short drivebut could not enter the vehicle as the bad smell got stronger. Hence complainant remove the plastic cover from the seat and rear seat of the vehicle and he shocked that found decomposed rat in the rear seat of the car. Which is shown in Ex.C6. Immediately the complaint sent letter by Email as per Ex.C3 to the Opposite Party no.1 and 2 Opposite Party had replied as per Ex.C7 and admitted same as per Ex.C5 and not disputed the complaint.The contention of the complainant that the Opposite Party no.3 agreed only change the rare seat, drain pipe and wiring and not replace the new car. Due to the damage, vehicle has lost the originality and value of the vehicle is reduced by at least Rs.2,50,000/. The Opposite Party disputed that, after verifying and satisfied the car, complainant took the delivery and the car of the complainant was in the parking area for three days at the place of parking area of the complainant rat entered in car and not at the time of delivery, hence as per job card the Opposite Party repaired the vehicle without any charge. It is undisputed fact that the purchased car was damaged due to rat bitten as per Ex.C7 which is issued by the Opposite Party no.3 it reveals that ON DIAGNOSIS FOUND REAR SEAT DAMAGE AND WIRING HARNESS RAT BITTEN. The Ex.C7 repair order time mentioned that 12.30 it seems that the complainant hand over the car for repair on 17.11.2014 morning. Further, the complainant purchased the car on 14.11.2017 and took delivery at Friday 6.45 P.M. as per complainant documents. After verifying the document placed before the fora which shows that the purchased car of the complainant got damaged due to the rat bitten and it is came to the knowledge of the complainant at the time of took delivery on 14.11.2017 when the bad smell inside the car but the staff of the Opposite Party denied the smell and says that due to new car in smell occurs. Now, the points for consideration is that at the time of pre delivery inspection, the Opposite Party not informed the complainant to be present and also as per Ex.R1 the signature of the complainant not found in the above document. The contention of the complainant that opposite parties are piled up at open yard, open for sun rear place called Panjmogaru without any safety measurer. But Opposite Party denied the statement of the complainant and stating that the new cars are parked in open yard in levelled ground with proper fencing and severity, but there is no documents to prove the statement of the Opposite Party. Hence the version of the Opposite Party not believable. Further, the contention of the Opposite Party that at the time of delivery of the car no smell was coming and electric system power windows, ultra lock system working. But here in we stick upon the matter for bad smell inside the car is caused due to the decomposed rat. It is undisputed fact that the complainant took delivery of the car on 14.11.2014 at 6.45 P.M. On 15.11.2014 the car kept before RTO for registration, on 16.11.2014 the complainant along with family members go to short drive, they could not enter the vehicle to the bad smell hence remove the plastic cover of the seat and found a dead, decomposed rat in the rear seat. It is presumed that a dead decomposed rat found in the rear seat and it is unbelievable fact that within a day any dead creatures not decomposed or smell hence we presume that at the time of delivery the rat was in side the car. The Opposite Party no.3 is without proper inspection and without proper care and caution delivered the which caused the complainant andlossed the originality of the new car within few days which amounts to be deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party no.3 and whatever damages caused due to the rat bitten which is not the manufacturer defect and the complainant not established the case against Opposite Party No.1 and 2, hence the Opposite Party no.1 , 2 are not liable for the same and even though the Opposite Party no.4 is the dealer of the above said car, the Opposite Party no.4 is already delivered the car to Opposite Party no.3 hence the deficiency in the service on the part of Opposite Party no.4 does not arise. Therefore we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party no.3 is liable to pay the damage to the car for loss of originality of the brand new car to the tune of Rs.50,000/ including cost is justified. Hence the answer No.1 to 2 is affirmative.
In the result, accordingly we pass the following Order.
ORDER
The complaint is partlyallowed. Opposite Party no.3 shallpay Rs.50,000/ for damage caused to the complainant. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Case against Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 4 is hereby dismissed. In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount with in the stipulated time, the opposite party is directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 12directly dictated by Memberto the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th June 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr.J.A.Melwyn D’Souza,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1:14.11.2014: C/o Tax invoice No.VSLA14000267 issued by Opposite Party no.3 for Rs.9,29,000/.
Ex.C2: 14.11.2014: C/o receipt of Opposite Party no.3 for payment by the complainant.
Ex.C3: 18.11.2014: Extract of email sent by complainant to the opposite parties enclosing letter dated 17.11.2014.
Ex.C4: Photographs (5 in No.s) along with cover and invoice issued by the photo lab to show the extent of damage.
Ex.C5: 18.11.2014: Extract of reply of opposite parties vide email.
Ex.C6: 17.11.2014: C/o customer interaction check sheet issued by Opposite Party No.3.
Ex.C7: 17.11.2014: C/o repair order No.ROAB 14002893 issued by ono.3.
Ex.C8: 24.11.2014: C/o satisfaction note maintained at Opposite Party no.3 with endorsement by the complainant received under protest.
Ex.C9: 5.12.2014: Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.C10: Postal acknowledgement and postal receipts (4 in no.s).
Ex.C11: 31.12.2014: Lawyers reply by Opposite Party no.3 and 4.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Prabhu Krishnan, Manager,
RW2: Mr. Damien Gignoux,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: pre instruction report contains 5 page.
Ex.R2: Tax invoice.
Ex.R3: Gate pass
Dated: 28.06.2017 MEMBER
