DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 503/2016
D.No.________________ Dated: ___________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJESH GHAIS/o LATE SH. KANWAL KRISHAN GHAI,
R/o B-6/67 & 70, SECTOR-8, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SUMIT SAWHNEY,
CEO RENAULT INDIA PVT. LTD.,
502, Vth FLOOR, TOWN CENTRE-II, SAKI-NAKA,
ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI EAST,
MUMBAI-400059.
2. SH. PRATEEK KAPOOR,
CEO DIVINE AUTOTECH PVT. LTD.,
RENAULT DELHI NORTH-WEST, GI-3,
G.T.K. ROAD INDL. AREA, AZADPUR, DELHI-110033.
3. M/s LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENE. INS. CO. LTD.,
10th FLOOR, AGGARWAL CYBER PLAZA,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAM PURA,
DELHI-110034. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 06.05.2016 Date of decision:12.11.2018
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 22.10.2015, the complainant purchased a new Car Renault KWID RXT model with registration no. DL-8C-AM-6284
CC No. 503/2016 Page 1 of 10
from OP-2, vide retail invoice no. SN/15-16/00152 dated 22.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,94,675/-. On 10.04.2016(wrongly typed in the complaint as 10.04.2015) about 12 mid-night, fire broke out in five month old new car in parking area thereby melting down entire engine damaging front tyres, jamming front doors and other parts, probably due to short circuit in the engine and the fire on car bonnet was extinguished by pouring a bucket of water and as a precaution , battery terminals were removed to prevent further damages and both insurance company and OP-2’s customer care department were informed at same time. The complainant further alleged that early morning, OP-2’s engineers visited the premises of the complainant to inspect the condition of the car damaged and towed the car vide their authorized carrier to OP-2’s authorized workshop located at 16, Rama Road, New Delhi and the complainant was informed by the visiting engineer from OP-2’s office that there is no need reporting incidence to fire brigade or to Delhi Police, as it appears fire has been caused by internal short circuit and whole engine got melted, especially from right side of the car and since the complainant was very worried about condition of the car as due to fire car battery was fused, front car doors were jammed, tyres were partially burnt and about safety of driving the vehicle if the incident would have occurred while driving the car and with door jammed how could the family of the complainant would
CC No. 503/2016 Page 2 of 10
have evacuated themselves in that case. On the same day, two technical experts from OP-1 and Mr. Dalbir from OP-2’s office visited again at the complainant’s residence to see the place where fire incident occurred and the complainant provided all photographs of burnt car taken in morning to Mr. Dalbir and a complaint no. 201635773 dated 11.04.2016 was provided and they convinced that Renault India shall be providing a new car as replacement to the complainant. On 15.04.2016, the complainant was informed by OP-1’s customer care department through representative Ms. Neetu Chawla by e-mail dated 15.04.2016 that the car engine is technically good and there could be some other reasons for fire incidence in car and the complainant had a long discussion with Mr. Negi and Mr. Kaushik (mobile no. 8587010018 on 19.04.2016) from Renault India which unfortunately meant to pressurize the complainant to leave claim for new car replacement. The complainant further alleged that similar incidence of fire was reported involving Renault KWID on 20.02.2016 at Aurangabad with like-wise right-side of car being damaged in fire and in that case OP-1 people has played down the incidence blaming accessories installed by the purchaser and in the complainant’s car no accessory was installed and the incidence of similar kind of fire in Renault KWID car cannot be a coincidence but all probabilities due to manufacturing defect in car. The complainant further alleged
CC No. 503/2016 Page 3 of 10
that the complainant replied back seeking probable technical reasons from OP-1 and OP-2 which could have caused fire in car and also asked for the technical report and copy of mail as this kind of incidence could have happened while driving, posing serious risk to lives of driver & passengers and no reply was issued by either OP-1 & OP-2 on probable risk factor in car. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has complained to CM, Delhi, Delhi Police Commissioner and OP-1 & OP-2 offices on vide e-mail dated 21.04.2016 but no action been taken and the complainant has been regularly in touch with the technical head Mr. Param Dayal at OP-2’s workshop about status of car but unable to get response. On 29.04.2016, the complainant sent notices for deficiency in services to OP-1 & OP-2 vide registered post but has received no response and on 05.05.2016, the complainant’s car has not been attended under company new car warrantee as per OP-1 owner manual and OP-1 & OP-2 did not bother to get the complainant’s car repaired under new car warrantee fearing public acceptance of wrong designing of the Renault KWID car and the situation is OP-1 had launched a cheaper car in market, using substandard technology, unsuitable for Indian conditions, caught fire at beginning of summer. The complainant further alleged that both the OPs do not provide the complainant alternate vehicle for usage, a general practice adopted by automobile companies in case vehicle is
CC No. 503/2016 Page 4 of 10
grounded for 3 or more days and without car, since 11.04.2016, the complainant had been facing hardship, had restricted mobility and suffered business loss. The complainant further alleged that OPs have supplied defective good which posed serious risk to life of driver and passenger and OPs are not ready to undertake replacement of parts damaged under OP-1 new car warrantee and did not attend to the damaged car for almost a month, without logical reason and moreover instead of writing, verbally informing the complainant through workshop manager Mr. Param Dayal, lodge insurance. The complainant further alleged that the complainant’s car purchased from OP-1 and OP-2 is almost new, rarely driven less than 2000 KMS in 5 months and has been damaged due to Renault KWID faulty design and there was no accident nor riots or fire or other natural/man made activities which caused fire in the complainant’s car and once accidental claim is taken, the evaluation of car drops to less than 50 % and the complainant is not under legal obligation to accept the shortcomings of OP-1 & OP-2 which caused fire in car and the complainant is now afraid to drive this piece of faulty Renault KWID car and is interested in either new replacement of car or wish to seek refund of payment made towards purchase of said car from OP-1 & OP-2.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint
CC No. 503/2016 Page 5 of 10
praying fordirection to OPs to refund the cost of the vehicle Rs.3,94,675/- alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a., compounded every month as well as compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental harassment, agony and financial loss and has also sought Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed their reply/written statement. OP-1 in its reply submitted that Sh. Sumit Sawhney being the Country CEO& MD has been in appropriately made a party and instead the manufacturing company should have been arrayed as a proper necessary party. OP-1 further submitted that cause for fire is an ambiguous, imaginary and unsubstantiated and further that the vehicle in question was not defective and the insurer i.e. insurance company has rejected the claim for failure on the part of the complainant to furnish original documents.
4. OP-2 in its reply submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous. OP-2 further submitted that as the complaint has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service rendered by OP-2 and even as per the complaint, OP-2 is a dealer of OP-1 and has sold the vehicle i.e. Renault KWID RXT model to the complainant and that as per the admitted case of the complainant it is OP-1 who is the manufacturer of the said vehicle and the complainant has no any deficiency in service against OP-2 while delivering the vehicle of the complainant and the grievance of
CC No. 503/2016 Page 6 of 10
the complainant relates to the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle which as per the complaint has resulted in the vehicle catching fire on 10.04.2016.
5. OP-3 in its written statement submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3 and the claim is liable to be dismissed.
6. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of receipts dated 14.10.2015 & 22.10.2015 of Rs.3,70,615/- & Rs.10,500/- issued by OP-2, copy of retail invoice no. SN/15-16/00152 dated 22.10.2015 of Rs.3,47,631/- & copy of retail invoice of Rs.38,484/- for payment of registration fee, service tax, insurance & extended warrantee, copy of complaint sent by e-mail dated 11.04.2016 at 1:00 a.m. regarding fire in the car in parked condition almost after 6 hrs. of trip sent to OP-2 & OP-3, copy of break-down service report dated 11.04.2016 regarding towing of car by OP-2 through crane with the remarks ‘vehicle gutted due to electronic wire fault-parking condition’, copy of photograph of the front-bonnet portion of the car, copy of reply by OP-1 through e-mail dated 15.04.2016 at 10:26 a.m. & copy of notice dated 29.04.2016 sent by the complainant and also filed copy of terms & conditions of Renault New Vehicle Warrantee which is to
CC No. 503/2016 Page 7 of 10
the effect as under:
2. The Renault New Vehicle Warrantee
2.1 Duration of Manufacturer’s New Vehicle Warrantee: Vehicles in the Renault range, delivered as new from 1st May 2011 to the customer by the authorized Renault dealer, are warranted against any material, assembly or manufacturing defects by the manufacturer New Vehicle Warrantee for a duration of 2 years or 50,000 kilometers (whichever is earlier) starting from the delivery date shown in the owner’s manual issued to the customer upon delivery of the vehicle. Transfer of ownership does not alter the warrantee period of the vehicle.
8. On the other hand on behalf of OP-1(company) Sh. Damien Gignoux, Chief Financial Officer of OP-1 (company) and Sh. Vimesh Kumar, Manager-Techline& Expertise Cases with the company filedtheir affidavits which are on the basis of the reply of OP-1 and OP-1 also filed written arguments.
9. On behalf of OP-2 (dealer) Sh. Deepak Juneja, AR filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the reply of OP-2 and OP-2 also filed written arguments.
10. On behalf of OP-3 Sh. Jitendra Jain, National Litigation Manager filed his affidavit which is on the basis of the reply of OP-3 and OP-3 also filed written arguments.
11. Ld. Counsel for OP-1, during arguments placed reliance on following authorities:
i) (2000) 10 SCC 654 in case entitled Hindustan Motors Ltd. & ANR. Vs. N. Siva Kumar & ANR.
ii) (2009) 3 CPJ 229 (NC) in case entitled Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand& ANR.
iii) (2014) SCC online NCDRC 487 in case entitled Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs. Surbhi Gupta &Ors.
CC No. 503/2016 Page 8 of 10
12. This forum has considered the case of the parties in the lightof evidence of the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OPs. We have also considered the case laws as relied on by Ld. Counsel for OP-1. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieved the case of the complainant and there is no genuineness and merits in the defence of the OPs. Furthermore, there is no justification on the part of OP-1to contend that the complainant ought to have taken the claim from the insurance company and not from the manufacturer, as it is an admitted case that the vehicle did not meet with a road side accident. As per the document of OP-2, the car was towed by the authorized crane service of OP-2 from the parking area of the residence of the complainant to the authorized workshop of OP-2 and it is mentioned in the report that the car was in a fire gutted position. It is also the admitted case that the car of the complainant was almost a new car having purchased about 6 months back and has run about 2000 KMS. It clearly shows that there has been some manufacturing and inherent defect in the vehicle sold to the complainantand the complainant is entitled for the refund of the price of the vehicle. OP-1 being the manufacturing company is liable to refund the price of the vehicle and OP-1 has failed to refund to the complainant. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
CC No. 503/2016 Page 9 of 10
13. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay/refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,81,115/- being the amount paid by the complainant on return of the damaged vehicle alongwith all the accessories, if not with OP-2 and original invoice.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
14. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 12th day of November, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 503/2016 Page 10 of 10
