Punjab

Sangrur

CC/467/2014

TINU BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD, NISSAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

RAHUL SHARMA

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                

                                       Complaint no. 467

                                  Instituted on:  14.08.2014

                                                                     Decided on:    10.03.2015

Tinu Bansal w/o Diviyanshu Bansal resident of 15, Naughara Mohalla, Patiala Gate, Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Asv Ramana Towers, 37&38, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017 through its Managing Director.     

2.     Hover Automotive India Pvt. Limited 1001, a Godrej Coliseum, Somaiya  Hospital Road, Off Eastern Express Highway, Sion (e) Mumbai 400022.

3.     KL Nissan Authorized dealer for Nissan Motor India Pvt. Limited Village Dhareri Jattan, Bahadurgarh, Rajpura Road, Patiala ( Punjab).

4.     HRBM Nissan, a Unit of M/s HRBM Automobiles Pvt. Limited village Bhindran, Patiala Road, Sangrur 148001 through its authorized signatory/ owner.

      ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1    :     Shri Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate                     

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3    :     Exparte                    

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&4: Given up.    

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Tinu Bansal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she purchased a Nissan Micra XV Dci (silver) from OP No.2 vide invoice/ bill dated 18.12.2012.  Since the date of purchase, the suspension system of the car is not working properly and the complainant got it repaired from OP No.3 twice and thirdly/ lastly it was got serviced on 12.06.2013 but  the problem is still  existing since the date of purchase. Lastly the complainant got the service of the car from OP No.4 vide bill dated 14.06.2014 but still the said problem exists in the car. In fact there is a manufacturing defect in the suspension of the car and it could not be removed despite repeated services. While getting  the service of the car on 14.06.2014, the OP No.4 charged Rs.1434.82 ps. as price of the spare part Strainer ASSY-F plus Rs.205.18 Ps as tax, but when the complainant perused the cover- box  (wrapper) of the said spare part, he revealed  that its MRP is Rs.995/- inclusive of all taxes and thereby Rs.645/- has been charged in excess by  the OP No.4 which amounts to unfair trade practice. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to replace the car with new one or in the alternative to refund the full price of the car along with interest @12% per annum from the date of bill till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to refund Rs.645/- charged in excess regarding the spare part in the bill dated 14.06.2014,   

iii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP No.1, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, jurisdiction and cause of action have been taken up.  On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased  the car on 18.12.2012 and has got the first service done from the authorized dealer on 17.01.2013 and free inspection of the car was made as per manual at 1000 Kms and nothing was found out of order.  On 18.04.2013 the complainant brought the car and told that there is suspension noise. The same was checked  and found no fault in the suspension  and had taken a joint  test drive with  the complainant who took the vehicle after  due satisfaction. On 12.06.2013 the complainant brought  the car for first free service and also raises concern about the suspension. The authorized dealer has conducted a thorough check up of the  said concern about the suspension and found that the noise is coming from the damages rear bumper and license plate.  The said bumper and license plate were rectified and thereafter road test drive was made on rough road as well. The complainant after his satisfaction only has taken the delivery of the car.  It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the suspension of the car. It is further submitted that  act of charging excess amount by the OP No.4 is concerned the OP no.1cannot comment upon due to the want of knowledge and  OPs No.1 and 4 have a relationship of principal to principal basis.  The said dealer was not an agent and had no authority  to bind the company by any contract.  The  OP No.1 was not responsible  for any deposits received by the said authorized dealer from the purchaser of its product. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

3.             Despite service OP No.3 did not appear and as such it was proceeded exparte on 24.09.2014.  As per order dated 17.11.2014, complaint against OP No.4 was dismissed and vide statement dated 07.10.2014, OP No.2 was given up.  

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-17 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered an affidavit Ex. OP1/1 along with annexure 1 to 3 and closed evidence.

5.             In the present complaint, the version of the complainant is that she purchased Nissan Micra XV Dci ( Silver) car from the OP No.3. The said  car was having defective  suspension system  since the date of purchase.  The car got repaired  from OP No.3 but defective suspension system of the car could not be repaired as the same being a manufacturing defect.

6.             In reply, the OP No.1 has submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction  and in order to decide the fact that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect an expert opinion is required. Further, in the reply it has been admitted by the OP No.1  that on 18.04.2013 and 12.06.2013 the complainant had brought  the car for service and has also raised the concern about the suspension of the vehicle but during service  it was found that the noise was that of damaged rear bumper and license plate.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and  on going  through the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant has received  the delivery of the vehicle  at Sangrur as per document Ex.C-1 which is an affidavit submitted by the employee of the OPs and OPs have not denied that the deponent  was not of their employee so this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

8.             Now, the question arises whether the vehicle in question has manufacturing defect or not ?  The OP No.1 vide para 8 of the document Ex.OP1/1 has himself admitted that the complainant had brought the car on 18.04.2013 and 12.06.2013  and had  also raised the concern about the suspension system of the vehicle. Further, the OP No.1 has submitted that the defect was that of rear bumber and license plate and it was  not that of the suspension system of the vehicle.  The version of the OPs is not tenable as anybody even a layman may judge whether the noise of the vehicle is that of the rear bumber and license plate or not.  Further, for such a small thing nobody will raise concern  with the authorized service station of the vehicle time and again.

9.             The OP no.1 has been simply submitting that “to prove such a fact, opinion of an expert is necessary  which is not forthcoming  in the present case”.  But the OP no.1 himself has not led any expert evidence  with regard to his own contention whereas the complainant has submitted the expert opinion of an engineer to prove her version with regard to the defective suspension system of the vehicle and the complainant has placed on record  documents Ex.C-3 to ExC-6. The expert evidence led by the complainant has also consulted with the work Manager  Mr. Dhiraj of HRBM  which is an authorized dealer of Nissan  and his foreman and they had taken a test drive of the car and found that noise was still coming from the vehicle. The expert vide document Ex.C-3 has mentioned that “ this noise is occurring repeatedly due to break calipers or shocker mounting and no accidental impression  was found underbody”. So,  this report clearly shows that the suspension system was defective as the report has been finalized after inspecting  the vehicle  and that too in the presence of authorized representative of the OPs.  The OPs have  not led any evidence except the affidavit of Shri Reshma Ravindran, Manager Legal Ex. OP-1/1. So, the evidence led by the complainant with regard to defect of the vehicle has gone unrebutted.

10.           So, from the facts mentioned above, we find that OPs No.1 and 3 are deficient in service in service and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs No.1 and 3 to replace the suspension system of the vehicle with new one along with extended warranty of one year. We further direct the OPs No.1 and 3 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/-  being the amount of compensation  on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/-  being the amount of litigation expenses.    

11.           This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

                Announced

March 10, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                              

        Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-