Haryana

Ambala

CC/106/2018

Brij Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bench Mark Motors Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                         

Complaint case no.        : 106 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  20.03.2018

                                                          Date of decision   :  24.04.2019

 

 

Brij Mohan Lal S/o Banarasi Dass R/o H.No.83, Luxmi Nagar, Ward No.10, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

 

1.  Bench Mark Motors Private Ltd. 14-15 Kms Near Ashirwad Restaurant, Ambala Jaghadri Road Village and P.O. Tepla District Ambala.

2.  Renault India Private Limited, 4^th  Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38 Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.

 

      ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Sourabh Ahuja, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Umrao Singh Mahi, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Ram Kumar Grewal, Advocate,  counsel for Op No.2.

 

Order:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to the Ops:-

1. To refund the purchase price of the car, the registration fee and pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him and litigation expenses alongwith interest.

Or

any other relief which  this Hon’ble Forum may deem  fit.

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that after seeing the advertisement of the Renault Company for the Kwid car on 01.07.2017, he approached the OP No.1 to purchase the automatic transmission Kwid car. At the time of taking the delivery of the car, complainant noted that the said car was of one year old model. Complainant immediately informed the OP No.1, then another car was delivered to him. From the next day of purchase of the said car, complainant found that there is some manufacturing defect in it and complainant visited the service center of the OP No.1. The OP No.1  assured him that car is OK. On 27.01.2018, the complainant was going to Patiala, for a family function in the above said car and when he reached near Rajpura, it jammed on road suddenly. Complainant informed about the said fact to the OP No.1. The OP No.1, sent his executive to collect the vehicle as it was very risky to drive it and could have caused mis-happening. After some days, the OP No.1 serviced/repaired the car and delivered it to the complainant with the assurance that he will never face any problem again. However, the complainant encounter the same problem again and again. On 06.03.2018, the complainant was going to Chandigarh, for a personal monetary deal and suddenly in between the road the car again jammed. He informed all the incident to the OPs and the executive of OP No.1 came and took the car to the workshop of OP No.1. The OPs again started making excuses that the car will be OK after the repair. The complainant instead of believing the false assurance given by the OPs had asked the OPs to refund the purchase price of the car but they did not refund the same. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                Upon notice OP No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; suppressed true material facts and no locus standi. On merits, it is stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the car. There was minor defect and the same was removed by the company, after minor repair. The complainant took a long road test of 200 km and the car was OK, however the complainant was adamant to get refund of the purchase price of the said car. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Upon notice OP No.2, appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless, frivolous, vexatious; not come with clean hands and bad for mis-joinder.  On merits, it is stated that the said car was manufactured by it. The dealer and the complainant had undergone sale transaction wherein all the material formalities were compiled with by the Dealer. The adequate services as and when required were provided to the complainant and there is no manufacturing defect in the said car. The complainant intentionally, has refused to take the delivery of his car and same is lying at the service center of the OP. The complainant would be liable and responsible to pay the maintenance charges for the vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect in the car. All other averments of the complainant were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.2 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure OP2/A and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

 5.               In the present case, the entire clutch/break system failed to work, from the very beginning of the purchase of the car in question. The engineer of the OPs, failed to rectify the said defect even after replacement of the entire system in question twice. It may be stated here that the clutch/ breaks of the vehicle is very integral and important part, failure of which is directly, a huge risk of life to the persons sitting therein. Even the OPs, also failed to convince this Forum as to why they are unable to rectify the defect in question. It is therefore held that the car in question suffers inherent manufacturing defect. As far as the opinion of the expert is concerned. It may be stated here that while cross examining the expert, he very hesitantly admitted that he did not go through the contents of the job sheets as well as the record in question and has given his opinion while driving the car for few Kilometers. The said expert has given his opinion merely by driving the car in question on the road and not by inspecting it, in well equipped workshop/service centre, therefore, the opinion given by the said expert has no significant value in the eyes of law, especially when there is admission on the part of the OPs that they have replaced the defective part twice and thereafter also the complainant has brought his car to workshop for the same defect. This fact also got forfeited for the statement dated 12.04.2019 of Sh. Sharfraj Khan, Engineer of Bench Mark Motor Renault, Mullana. As such any oral opinion of the expert cannot be accepted. In the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Koneru Satya Kishre & Ors. I (2018)CPJ 157 (NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the vehicle has to be taken to the workshop of dealer on a number of occasion with complaints of intermittent jerks, running and harsh noise from gear-box assembly system. Dealer made efforts to remove defects but vehicle could not be made free from such defects. The consumer cannot be expected to take vehicle to workshop on a number of occasion, unless there are defects in said vehicle. Defect in a vehicle may come under category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said  to be suffering from ‘defect’, if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming  in quality, quantity, potency,  purity or standard,  which was required to be maintained under any law in force. Vehicle did suffer from ‘defects’, as it had to be taken to workshop of the dealer from time-to-time. The petitioner failed in the task to provide the vehicle in road-worthy condition to the complainant. The dealer did carry out repairs in vehicle as per job cards, but was not able to remove defects in vehicle. Refund of purchase price and compensation rightly awarded.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To refund the purchase price of the car to the complainant alongwith interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.03.2018 till its realization.  
2. To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him.
3. To pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigations expenses.

 

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount (minus litigation expenses) shall carry interest @9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :24.04.2019

 

 

                    Sd/-                             Sd/-                         Sd/-

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member             President