IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM.
Dated this the 29th day of March,2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S., President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
CC No.62/18(filed on6/4/18)
Complainant : Sudeep. R. Nair
S/o Raveendran Nair
Kadakkettu House
Manimala PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. E.J.Binu)
Vs.
Opposite parties : The Managing Director
EVM Nissan
Evm Automobiles Pvt Ltd
Bldg.No.XVI/139/E
NH Bye Pass, Nettoor, Kochin
682040.
2)Branch Manager,
EVM Automobiles Pvt Ltd,
Thellakom, Ettumanoor, Kottayam.
6866016.
(Adv. S.M.Sethu Raj)
3) Nissan Motor India Pvt.Ltd
5th floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 52,
Venkatrnarayana, t.Nagar, Chennai-
600017 repted by its
Managing Director.
.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant purchased a motor car Renault Nissan Datsun Go bearing registration No.KL-33 H-2295 for an amount of Rs.4,45,162/- from the 1st opposite party on 1/04/2016. The vehicle was purchased with the financial assistance of Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd upon an interest of the loan at 14% per annum. Though 1st and 3rd additional opposite parties assured the complainant that the vehicle would have a mileage of 20.63 Km/liters and offered one year extended warranty at free of cost. The 1st and 3rd opposite parties published this in their advertisement also. Believing this the complainant purchased the said vehicle. But the vehicle had a mileage of less than 10 Km/liter. When the complainant complained about this to the opposite parties they said that only after the completion of the 2nd and 3rd service the mileage would attain 20.63 km/hr. But even after the 2nd service complaint was not rectified. One year extended warranty was also not given. Even after several complaints made by the complainant to the opposite parties they did not responded on 30/12/2017 the complainant sent a registered lawyer’s notice to the 1st opposite party demanding either to pay compensation or to call back the vehicle and return the price of the vehicle. But the opposite party did not reply. Though so many vehicles were available in the market only upon the assurance made by the 1st opposite party the complainant purchased the said vehicle. But the opposite party was cheating the complainant by selling the substandard product. The complainant sustained a loss of Rs.1,15,700/- as fuel expense due to decrease in mileage of the vehicle. The complainant sustained a loss of Rs.1,90,903/- due to the low resale value of the vehicle because of the decreasing mileage. More over the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.85, 800/- towards the interest paid to the finance company. All these were happened only because of the deficiency of service from the opposite parties.
Upon notice from this commission only the 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. 1st opposite party and additional 3rd opposite party did not turn up and hence set exparte.
The 2nd opposite party filed version through its branch manager. The 2nd opposite party contends that the complaint is barred by non-joinder of necessary party. The 2nd opposite party had never given an assurance about the mileage or warranty to the complainant. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from EVM Automotive India Pvt.Ltd Nettoor, Ernakulam which is entirely different from the 2nd opposite party company. It is not true that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the 2nd opposite party gave an assurance to the complainant because the 2nd opposite party did not met him on that day. No assurance about the mileage or warranty was given by the 2nd opposite party. The mileage of the vehicle is certified in India by ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India) not by any dealer or manufacturer. The mileage of a vehicle depends upon the driving style, conditions of the road, quality of the fuel etc. All these factors should be managed by the complainant. The complainant has not proved that the said vehicle had a mileage of 10 k.m/liter only. In every periodic service the vehicle under goes a complete checkup as per the check list provided by the manufacturer. In this case also when such a checkup was made no complaint had been raised by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party had not received any complaint, lawyer’s notice or telephone call from the complainant till date. The product purchased by the complainant is a very good product of Nissan Datson. The complaint has been filed without any bonafides and is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exts.A1 to A9 towards the evidence of the case. The opposite parties has not adduced any evidence.
On perusal of the above facts and evidence we would like to frame the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded in establishing deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience two points are considered together
Point No.1 &2
The complainant alleges that the vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party had a mileage of 10Km/liter only contrary to assurance given by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties. According to the complainant the 1st and 3rd opposite parties assured him that the vehicle would be having a mileage of 20.63 km/litre The opposite parties gave an extended warranty also. But the vehicle while used showed a mileage of only 10km/litre even after the 2nd scheduled service. This is alleged to be a deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. While the 2nd opposite party, the only appearing opposite party defends as the mileage of the vehicle depends on several reasons like nature of use etc. More over the complainant has not filed any evidence in support of his allegation.
On a detailed examination of the complaint, version, affidavit and documents we find that though the complainant raises an allegation of selling substandard quality vehicle by the opposite parties no evidence has been produced by him to support the allegation. Exhibit A5 shows that the opposite party has offered a fuel consumption of 20.63/litre. The complainant has not taken any steps to examine the vehicle and get an inspection report by an expert commissioner, to prove that the vehicle was not having a mileage of 20.63km/litre. There is a catena of decisions of the apex court that in cases involving technical matters court cannot arrive at a decision without the help of an expert opinion. So in the case in hand the complainant has failed to prove the allegation of low mileage of the new vehicle.
The complainant raises another allegation that the opposite parties cheated him by giving an assurance of two year extended warranty. Ext.A4 is only an acknowledgement of the delivery of the vehicle and warranty conditions. But the complainant has failed to prove any document disclosing those warranty conditions. No other document has been produced before this commission to prove that the opposite parties rejected or denied any of the claim submitted by the complainant to obtain any advantage of extended warranty. The complainant repeatedly stated that he had given complaints to the 1st and 3rd opposite parties several times but not a single copy of such complaint is produced before us. So it cannot be believed that the complainant had a genuine complaint about the vehicle and he had raised the complaints before the opposite parties on time. Hence point No.1 and 2 are found against the complainant and the complaint is dismissed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of March, 2021.
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S., President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1-Copy of registration certificate
A2-Copy of price list
A3-Copy of proforma invoice dtd 9/3/16
A4-Copy of warranty registration and delivery acknowledgement
A5-Copy of Key features
A6-Copy of service verification record
A7-Copy of lawyer’s notice
A8-AD card
A9-Purchase agreement
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
