BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF JULY 2021

                                                                                                  PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR :                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI  :     MEMBER

                                                                                      COMPLAINT NO. 214/2013

V/s

ORDER

Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective vehicle Renault Duster which resulted in seizure of engine after sale.  Hence, prayed for a direction against the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.22 lakhs including cost of the vehicle, registration, road tax, insurance expenses with interest at 18% p.a. and other reliefs.

2.      The averments in the complaint are as hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Renault Duster car from the Opposite Party No.1 who is the representative of Opposite Party No.2 and 3 sold the vehicle to the complainant.  After purchase, the complainant registered the same into his name bearing registration No.KA-04-ML-8436 on 23.02.2013.  Thereafter, he used the vehicle till 18.10.2013 as per the guidelines and specifications given by the Opposite Party.  Till that day, the complainant has not made any accident or the vehicle involved in the accident.  Such being the case, on 18.10.2013, he noticed some mechanical defect in the vehicle and immediately he informed the same to the Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 5 and sent for repair for which the Opposite Party furnished the checklist and assessed that there was an engine seizure and have estimated cost of Rs.4,15,813=65 to rectify and repair the vehicle, but, the Opposite Party have not informed the reason for mechanical defect in the vehicle.  Inspite of demand made by the complainant to know the reason for mechanical defect and seizure of engine, the Opposite Parties have not informed anything and repaired the vehicle for which the complainant has paid Rs.9,50,000/- towards repair. 

3.      The Opposite Parties have made the complainant to spend such a huge amount within a year after the purchase of the vehicle.  Hence, they rendered unfair trade practice in selling a defective vehicle to him.  He further alleged that without any reason, they have demanded for payment of Rs.9,50,000/- towards the repair of the vehicle and for replacement of the engine.  But, the Opposite Parties have not explained anything about the replacement of the engine.  Hence, prayed for refund of the amount paid towards vehicle along with compensation of Rs.22 lakhs and other reliefs.

4.      After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel, but, the counsel on record  had not filed any version.  Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 appeared through their counsel and filed their version and contended that it is true that the complainant had purchased Renault Duster vehicle in the month of February 2013 bearing Registration No.KA-04-ML-8436 from their dealership.  After taking delivery for the first time on 04.03.2013 the complainant approached the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 5 for service for minor complaints of suspension noise and to check air-condition mode.  After receiving the vehicle, they have generated repair order No.RAB 12006232 and mileage reading was 490 kms at that time.  After initial technical analysis by their qualified technicians, solved the problem and delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  Thereafter, he brought the vehicle again and he driven the vehicle for 2,174 kms for first service on 03.04.3013 and the service station of their company have provided service and noticed no complaints with respect to the engine and other performance and delivered the same to the complainant.  Again on 03.05.2013, the complainant approached their service station with minor defects in starting and oil leakage and to provide roof rain cover.  Accordingly, the service was rendered and reading of the mileage was 4403 kms after repairing and attending the alleged complaints, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day.  Again on 26.07.2013 the complainant approached the service station for second service.  They have generated Repair/Service bills. No.R0AB13003738.  At the time of second service, the mileage reading was 10,295 kms and once again the complainant had not made any complaint with respect to the performance of the vehicle.  After service, they have delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 03.10.2013, the complainant brought the vehicle with a minor problem stating that the front doors not opening from outside and the brakes are not effective.  Accordingly, after receiving the complaint, the vehicle was attended and repair order was generated.  At that time, the vehicle mileage reading was 15567 kms.  After rectifying the alleged complaints and service, they have handed over the vehicle to the complainant.  Again on 18.10.2013, the complainant approached their service station by towing the vehicle and complained that engine was not starting.  Immediately without any delay, the car was taken for inspection and thereafter the service acceptance form was generated vide NO. A 6114 dt.18.10.2013 and at that time, the mileage reading was 16,722 kms.

5.      On preliminary physical examination, their service engineers found that there was a front impact and their executives clearly mentioned the same in the job card as below:

1. Engine seized

2. Front Bumper R.H. Chassis Damage

3. Front Glass Damaged and the same was clearly mentioned at Body Damages Colum also and complainant has acknowledged the job card.

On further inspection they found due to impact radiator cracked and upon further investigation they found the coolant oil tank was empty and they noticed that without observing the indications at instrumental panel the complainant has driven the vehicle with empty coolant tank which resulted in seizure of the engine.  Hence, it is purely a negligence on the part of the complainant in maintaining the vehicle.

          6.      The complainant has driving the vehicle up to 16722 kms as on 18.10.2013.  During that time, he had not suffered any problem with respect to the engine and further contended that the seizure of the engine is not due to any mechanical defect.  During the manufacturing process before the car was sent to showroom, for the ordinary prudence it is an established fact that the car undergoes stringent quality tests and every part and component of the car will pass through the quality test before getting the Quality Standard Certification and they are reputed dealer of the world renowned car manufacturer M/s RENAULT.  After the thorough checkup and Quality Standard Certification, they released the vehicle for sale.  They have engaged mechanics, technicians who are highly skilled, qualified and well trained have thoroughly inspected the vehicle and noticed that there was no coolant in the coolant tank and gave an opinion that the engine seizure was caused due to impact and non-availability of the coolant in the tank.  Hence, submits that there is no any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties 3 to 5 and they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.      The complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.C1 to C26.  The Opposite Party also filed their affidavit evidence and marked documents at Ex.R1 to R6.  Heard the arguments.

8.      On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(i)       Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

(ii)      What order?

          9.      The findings to the above points are;

                   (i)       Negative

                   (ii)      As per final order

REASONS

10.    On going through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents of both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Renault Duster vehicle bearing registration No.K-04-ML-8436 from the Opposite Parties which was maintained and distributed by the Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4.  The allegation made by the complainant is that after purchase of the vehicle, he noticed some minor defects and repaired frequently.  On 18.10.2013 the engine was seized without any reason and he was not able to start the vehicle and brought the same by towing and complained that there was a defect in the engine and the vehicle has a manufacturing defect and prayed for payment of compensation and refund the entire amount paid toward the vehicle as prayed above.

11.    The complainant in his affidavit has sworn that the Opposite Party had not informed the reason for seizure of engine and they have suggested to pay nearly Rs.9,50,000/- towards the replacement of the engine and other repairs.  Inspite of spending huge amount towards repair, the Opposite Parties have not informed the reason for seizure of the vehicle.  He had not met with any accident or the vehicle was not impacted to other damages.  Hence, submits there is unfair trade practice.

12.    On going through the job sheet and service rendered by the Opposite Party, we noticed that the complainant has availed first and second service without any complications.  The expert technicians who received the vehicle on 18.10.2013 have noticed that there is an empty coolant tank which means to say that the complainant failed to fill the coolant as and when it was empty, due to which the vehicle engine was seized.  It is also noted in the job card that the vehicle caused impact and suffered crusher of engine seized, front bumper RHRC damaged and glass also damaged which clearly goes to show that some external impact was caused to the vehicle whereas the complainant denied the said impacts on the vehicle.  Hence, the allegations made by the complainant cannot be accepted.  We noticed that the complainant had ply the vehicle up to 16722 kms as on 18.10.2013 and the complainant did not noticed any defect in the vehicle during that time.  Hence, the allegation made by the complainant selling of the defective vehicle is ruled out.  The complainant failed to establish the unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.

 Forward free copies to both the parties. 

                 Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-                               

MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*