Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1031/2014

BARJHA GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER RENAULT INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  1031/14

 

1. Ms. Barkha Gupta

W/o Shri Vineet Gupta

R/o G-325, Preet Vihar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                     ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The General Manager

Renault India Pvt. Ltd.

R/o Plot No. 1, Sipcot Industrial Estate

Mattue (Post) Sriperumbudar

Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu – 602 105

 

2. The General Manager

Renault India Pvt. Ltd.

C/o Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.

77, Patparganj Industrial area

New Delhi   

 

3. The General Manager

Renault India Pvt. Ltd.

C/o Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd.

R/o 51, Rama Road

New Delhi – 110 015                                                       ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 01.12.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 01.08.2017

Judgment Passed on: 01.08.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Ms. Barkha Gupta against the General Manager, Renault India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster Car DSL RXL (85Ps) 2013 on 20.05.2013 from Renault Delhi East, Avia Auto Service Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for a sum of Rs. 9,73,000/- having registration no. DL-13C-6114 and Chassis No. 4019924.  It has been stated that since delivery of the car, there has been one defect or the other owing to poor manufacturing carried out by Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). 

          The complainant on 21,08,2013 at around 7.30 p.m., after 3 months of the delivery, after driving the same 6248 Km. while coming back faced a problem with the gear box.  He called up the helpline as the car was stranded in the middle of the road.  It was towed by van at 11.30 p.m., after 4 hours of deliberation and finally taken to workshop of Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).  Representative of OP-3 took the car and informed the complainant that he would be duly intimated about the breakdown in the car and the possible reason for the same. However, OP-3 was completely uncooperative.  He visited personally to oversee the problem with the vehicle.  On 23.08.2013,  When the complainant through her husband Mr. Vineet Gupta, reached the workshop of OP-3, he was informed that there was a defect in the gear box and they issued a job card and kept the car for 30 days. 

          The complainant, being a patient of Leukemia type of blood cancer, chronic myelogenous leukemia and Cml., had to hire a taxi for herself and her family.  The inordinate delay by OP-3 caused gross inconvenience and hardship to the complainant of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the period during which the said car remained at the workshop.  They requested many a times for update, but they were provided insufficient information.  Husband of the complainant sent various emails dated 30.08.2013, 31.08.2013, 01.09.2013, 05.09.2013, 10.09.2013, 14.09.2013 to the OPs, but they did not bother to reply.  They wrote an email to the complainant on 09.10.2013 stating that the car had been repaired.  When the complainant went to take the delivery, the same problem persisted and OP-3 gave further assurance to rectify the problem.  Finally, OP-3 delivered the car to the complainant on 22.09.2013. 

          Again on 21.10.2013, the car started creating a noise while he was on the Yamuna Expressway en-route to Agra at around 9 a.m.  The complainant again called the helpline and the tow away van arrived at around 3.30 p.m.  Instead of solving the problem, they demanded money and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid by the complainant.  This amounts to gross deficiency in service. 

          On the next morning, the complainant got a call from Renault Workshop that there was a defect in the clutch of the car.  Complainant requested OP-2 to send and deliver the car to OP-3 as she had already carried out the repair work earlier.  However, OP-3 did not pay any heed to the complainant’s request and assured her that the car would be rectified.  The complainant stated that clutch of the vehicle was not having any problem; it was the great box, which caused the entire ruckus.  OP-3 emailed the job card with the observation that the clutch has to go under a check.  The complainant immediately went to the workshop and intimated the representative to mention about the breakdown of the gear box.  When the representative of the workshop came to the complainant on 22.09.2013, she was shocked to see that the job card did not state the gear defect of the car, but he mentioned about some other defect.  When the complainant inquired about this, OP-3 gave verbal assurance that the same will be mentioned on the next visit of the complainant to its workshop. 

          Again on 13.06.2014, when the complainant alongwith her family members was going to Kanpur to attend her sister-in-law’s engagement, there was a lot of noise coming from gear shifting and its power steering was going to hard and chocked.  The complainant was unable to move the said car from one place to another.  This incident occurred in between mid of the road at NH-24.  Again the helpline was called and the tow away van arrived at around 3 p.m.  They again demanded money and ultimately took the vehicle to the workshop of OP-3.  The complainant sent emails more than 5 times, but she did not heard any positive reply.  She heard the noise from the engine at the right time and rightly stopped the car, otherwise this could have ended up into a serious accident.  Thus, it has been stated that OPs have supplied to the complainant a defective car.          The complainant sent a legal notice of dated 10.09.2014 calling upon OPs to deliver a new car, free from all defects and also demanded damages for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-.  Thus, she has prayed for direction to OPs to deliver a new car of the same model; compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment alongwith Rs. 22,000/- litigation expenses. 

3.       In the reply filed on behalf of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), they have stated that complaint without mechanical inspection of the vehicle was not maintainable; there was absolute compliance with warranty policy qua subject vehicle; the vehicle covered about 17,339 Kms. and such mileage may convincingly repel and rebuke the contention of the complainant about the vehicle being defective.  Other facts have also been denied. 

          In the reply filed on behalf of Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), they have also denied the plea of the complainant and have stated that the complainant was regularly informed about the progress of the repairing work and the fire accident which had occurred in the plant of Renault, which delayed the repairing work, which was not deliberate.  They have further stated that gear box problem was removed by the workshop of OP-3 when the vehicle was brought on 23.10.2013.  The same was delivered within 2 days without charging anything. 

          No separate WS was filed on behalf of OP-2 and they have adopted the reply filed by OP-1.

4.       In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  She has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  She has also got exhibited the documents such as original copy of receipt of purchasing Duster car from Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) (Ex.CW1/A), original copy of workshop receipt of Duster car (Ex.CW1/B), original copy of emails of GM of Renault (Ex.CW1/C), copy of wrong job sheet from Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.CW1/D), medical papers of complainant (Ex.CW1/E), copy of legal notice (Ex.CW1/F) and original postal receipts (Ex.CW1/G). 

          Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) have examined Shri Galamtez Axel, Chief Financial Officer, who have deposed on affidavit.  He have also narrated the facts/contents of their reply and have got exhibited documents such as letter of authority (Ex.OP1/A), the text of Warranty Policy with list of documents (Ex.OP1/B), again Warranty Policy and Roadside Assistance Policy (Ex.OP1/C), copies of mailing communication issued by the dealer to the counsel and reply (Ex.OP1/D).

          Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) have examined Shri Tanveer Singh, (Cotech Technical Manager), who have deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which have been stated in the WS.

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of OP-2.

5.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) that they being the manufacturer, there has been no allegation in the complaint that there was manufacturing defect.  They have also stated that complainant have not filed any evidence on record to show that there was manufacturing defect. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that when the vehicle have been taken to the workshop for one problem or the other, the vehicle being new one, certainly, it amounts to manufacturing defect. 

          Counsel for Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2)  have argued that there has been no allegation against OP-2 and the complainant have only purchased the vehicle from them.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant have argued that they being the authorized service centre of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1) were also vicariously liable for the acts of Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3).

          Counsel for Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) have also argued that they have got the vehicle repaired from time to time and there was no deficiency on their part.  They have also stated that the vehicle was repaired under warranty and they did not charge anything.  They have further stated that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop on 23.10.2013, it has already covered a mileage of 7,447 Kms.  Further, when it was again taken to the workshop on 14.06.2013, it had covered mileage of 17,339 Kms.  Thus, they have stated that the vehicle was properly inspected and delivered after removing the defects.  On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that the vehicle was not properly attended and defects were not removed.

          To fasten the liability of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), the manufacture, it has to be seen as to whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or not.  If the evidence on record is perused, it is noticed that the complainant only alleged that there was one defect or the other and owing to the poor manufacturing carried out by OP-1, except this, there is nothing on record to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the car.  These are mere allegations without any supportive evidence such as any report to this effect.  In the absence of any expert evidence produced on behalf of the complaiant, it cannot be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. 

          The only problem stated in the complaint has been of gear box, which have been repaired by Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), service centre of OP-1.  This defect cannot be termed as manufacturing defect.  The judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for OP-1 in Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. [I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)], where it has been laid down that onus to prove manufacturing defect lies on complainant and in the absence of any expert evidence manufacturing defect cannot be said to be proved, help M/s. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). Therefore, no liability can be fastened on OP-1.

          Coming to the liability of Avia Auto services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2), it has been noticed in the complaint that there have been no allegations against OP-2.  Not only that, they are the dealer from whom the vehicle has been purchased.  They being the dealer and the complainant having purchased the vehicle and no allegations have been put against them, the question of any liability of Avia Auto services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) does not arise, therefore, no liability can be fastened on OP-2. 

          Coming to the liability of Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), if any, the evidence on record has to be gone into.  If the evidence on record is gone through, it is noticed that the complainant have brought the vehicle for the first time on 30.08.2013 with the problem of gear shifting.  This time, the vehicle have covered 6248 mileage as is evident from the RO bill of Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), which shows that the gear box assembly and gear box nose were repaired and they being within the warranty, nothing was charged. 

          Further, the vehicle came for service on 23.10.2013 when it had covered 7447 Kms. with the problem of gear box assembly and gear box nose.  Here the gear box were replaced which was under warranty.  Again the problem was rectified and there was no billing as per RO billing of OP-3.  Again the vehicle came to the workshop on 13.06.2014 with gear shift and power steering problem.  This time, the vehicle have covered 17,339 Kms.  Though, the complainant have not placed anything on record with regard to the charges, however, the vehicle history which have been placed on record of Avia Auto services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) show that no amount was charged.  Thus, reading of the combined history of the vehicle show that the vehicle have gone to the workshop on 23.08.2013, 23.10.2013 and 13.06.2014 with gear box, clutch and starting problem, which have been rectified by the workshop without any charge.  This history also shows that the vehicle covered 6248 Km., 7447 Km. and 17,337 Kms. respectively, when it was taken to the workshop on the date mentioned earlier.  When the vehicle has covered respective kms.  and the defects were rectified by OP-3 without any charge, it cannot be said that OP-3 were deficient in their service.  Therefore, there cannot be said to be any deficiency on the part of OP-3.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency on the part of Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1), Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and Unit Devine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), therefore, the complaint is without any merit, which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President