Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/356

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Renault India Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sarbjit Singh Brar

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          356

Date of Institution :    8.12.2016

Date of Decision :      13.06.2017

 

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, aged about 31 years s/o Gurbhej Singh Chauhan r/o Village Dhilwan Khurd, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director, Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) – Head Office ASV Ramana Towers #37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkata Narayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai – 600017.
2. Managing Director, PMG Auto Limited, Plot No. 47, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.
3. Managing Director, PMG Auto Limited, 6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, Haryana - 134113.
4. Managing Director, Padam Cars Pvt Ltd, 8^th Mile Stone, Goniana road, Bathinda.

                                 ......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:           Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President.

 Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:  Sh Gurpreet Singh Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                 Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                 OP-2 to 4 Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective part of dash board of car and for also directing Ops to pay Rs. One lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.5,500/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 5.12.2012, complainant purchased a SUV vehicle make Duster Renualt bearing registration no.PB 04S 7500 from Op-2 on cash payment of Rs.12 lacs. It is submitted that after one month of purchase, colour of outer layer of its music system started peeling off and on his complaint, OP-2 replaced the same. It is further submitted that colour of opposite side of driver’s dash board of car has also started peeling off when car had run just about 58000/-km and this defect occurred within the warranty period, which is 90,000 /- km. When complainant visited Op-3 for getting the service of vehicle done, he reported the matter to OP-3, where technical advisor after checking the dash board advised that alleged part is not in stock and on its availability, they would change the same. Complainant got done the next service of his vehicle at about 70,000/-km and again requested him to change the dash board, but this time also he gave the same answer that defective part of dash board is not in stock. On 16.04.2016, complainant brought this defect into the notice of OP-1 through e-mail. His complaint was registered and representative of OP-1advised him to bring the matter to the nearest service station. On 23.04.2016, when complainant approached OP-4 for service of vehicle, he requested them for replacement of defective dash board, but he flatly refused to change the same asserting that vehicle is out of warranty. It is submitted that at the time of filing the complaint regarding defect in question, the vehicle was within warranty period. Op-4 refused to admit his request without knowing the reason. Complainant made several requests to Ops to replace the defective dash board of his car, but to no effect. Legal notice issued by complainant also bore no fruit. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs one lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.12.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has filed it on false, frivolous and wrong allegations. Complainant purchased the vehicle on 5.12.2012 and cause of action for filing complaint against alleged defect of discolouration and peeling off of colour of dash board of car accrued and commenced from January, 2013 and therefore, it should have been filed within two years of purchase. Therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed as complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.  Moreover, there is no manufacturing defect in the dash board as alleged by complainant and even complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence to prove his allegations and without expert evidence, which is mandatory, present complaint cannot be decided. However, on merits, Op-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no defect in the vehicle. As per admission of complainant the vehicle had run for more than 58000/-km and was more than two and half years old and thus, it is clear that vehicle has undergone wear and tear for being excessively used and this alleged discolouration and peeling off of the colour of dash board if any is  due to the wear and tear and excessive usage and this discolouration is not due to any manufacturing defect, rather it is due to substantial wear and tear and usage and thus, complaint filed by complainant is totally baseless. It is further averred that vehicle of complainant is more than 4 years old and has been driven more than 80,000/-km which clearly proves that vehicle of complainant has been excessively used. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

5                                            Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2 to 4 through registered cover, but did not receive back from Op-3 and 4 undelivered, RC might have been lost in transit and AD received back from OP-2 duly served. No body appeared on behalf of OP-2 to 4 on date fixed. Statutory period expired. Despite making several calls since morning, when no appeared on behalf of OP-2 to 4, therefore, vide order dated 31.01.2017, OP-2 to 4 were proceeded against exparte.

6                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 12 and then, closed the evidence.

7                             The ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Damien Gignoux as Ex.OP-1/1 and supplementary affidavit of  Damien Gignoux as Ex.OP-1/2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1.

8                                We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced by parties.

9                        Ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 5.12.2012, complainant purchased a SUV vehicle make Duster Renault bearing registration no. PB 04S 7500 from Op-2 on cash payment of Rs.12 lacs and after one month of purchase, colour of outer layer of its music system started peeling off and on his complaint, OP-2 replaced the same. It is submitted that colour of opposite side of driver’s dash board of car also started peeling off when car had run just about 58000/-km        and this defect occurred within the warranty period, which is 90,000 /- km. When complainant visited Op-3 for getting the service of vehicle done, he reported the matter to OP-3, where technical advisor after checking the dash board advised that alleged part is not in stock and on its availability, they would change the same. Complainant got done the next service of his vehicle at about 70,000/-km and again requested him to change the dash board, but this time also he gave the same reply that defective part of dash board is not in stock. On 16.04.2016, complainant brought the fact regarding this defect into the notice of OP-1 through e-mail and then his complaint was registered and representative of OP-1 advised him to bring the matter to the nearest service station. On 23.04.2016, when complainant approached OP-4 for service of vehicle, he requested them for replacement of defective dash board, but he flatly refused to change the same asserting that vehicle is out of warranty. It is submitted that at the time of filing the complaint regarding defect in question, the vehicle was within warranty period. Op-4 refused to admit his request without knowing the reason. Complainant made several requests to Ops to replace the defective dash board of his car, but to no effect. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10                               To controvert the allegations levelled by complainant, ld counsel for OPs averred that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainant has filed it on false, frivolous and wrong allegations. Complainant purchased the vehicle on 5.12.2012 and cause of action for filing complaint against alleged defect of discolouration and peeling off of colour of dash board of car accrued and commenced from January, 2013 and therefore, it should have been filed within two years of purchase. Therefore, present complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed as complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.  Moreover, there is no manufacturing defect in the dash board as alleged by complainant and even complainant has not brought on record any expert evidence to prove his allegations and without expert evidence, which is mandatory, present complaint cannot be decided. However, on merits, Op-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no defect in the vehicle. As per admission of complainant the vehicle had run for more than 58000/-km and was more than two and half years old and thus, it is clear that vehicle has undergone wear and tear for being excessively used and this alleged discolouration and peeling off of the colour of dash board if any is  due to the wear and tear and excessive usage and this discolouration is not due to any manufacturing defect, rather it is due to substantial wear and tear and usage and thus, complaint filed by complainant is totally baseless. It is further averred that vehicle of complainant is more than 4 years old and has been driven more than 80,000/-km which clearly proves that vehicle of complainant has been excessively used. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. Case of the complainant is that he purchased a new car from Ops and just after few months of purchase, colour of its music system change and on complaint by complainant, they changed the music system. Thereafter, colour of dash board of his newly purchased car started fading away and got discoloured. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of Ops during the service of vehicle in question, but service centre of Ops did not remove the said defect on the ground that they did not have that defective part of dash board in their stock and on availability of same, they would change the dash board. During next service, complainant again brought this fact to the notice of Ops, but they again replied that dash board is not in stock. At the time of next service, when complainant requested to change the dash board, Op-4 flatly refused to change the same on the ground that  vehicle of complainant is out of warranty period. despite several requests Ops did not pay any heed to hear his genuine request. Even legal notice issued by complainant served no purpose. All this caused harassment and amounts to deficiency in service. In reply Ops have totally refuted all the allegations of complainant and asserted that complainant has levelled false and baseless allegations and present complaint is barred by limitation. They have stressed that  alleged discolouration is due to excessive usage and substantial wear and tear of the vehicle. It is asserted that there is no deficiency in service and have prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12                                          To controvert the allegation of OP-1 that complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation and it is not covered under warranty, ld Counsel for complainant has brought our attention to the copy of complaint written by complainant to Ops wherein it is clearly mentioned that Ops did not replace the dash board of car of complainant earlier as they did not have that part in their stock. This letter bears reference to earlier period, when complainant brought this fact to the notice of Ops. It proves that this fact was in the notice of Ops prior to the reporting of complaint by complainant before Ops. Copy of letter written by complainant, which is clearly mentioned in complaint also reiterates the same grievance. Thus, it is clear that this defect of discolouration of dash board was in the notice of Ops when vehicle in question was covered under the period of warranty, but they did not replaced the same due to non availability of same in their stock. Complainant reported the matter to Ops within the warranty period, but there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not redressing the grievance of complainant, which was required to be done earlier by making replacement of dash board.

13                               In view of above discussion and evidence produced by complainant, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to replace the dash board of car of complainant within one month of receipt of this order. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 13.06.2017   

          Member            President

          (P Singla)         (Ajit Aggarwal)