BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.377 of 2016

Date of Instt. 05.09.2016

Date of Decision:19.06.2018

Bhushan Lal Narang S/o Sh. Pyara Lal R/o 720, J. P. Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Padam Car Pvt. Ltd., Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Amritsar Bye-Pass Road, Jalandhar City.

2. M/s Nishan Renault Manufacturing Plant Pvt. Ltd., Distt. Kanchipuram Oragadam, Chennai 600017, Tamilanandu, through its Managing Director.

3. Production Manager M/s Nishan Renault Manufacturing Plant Pvt. Ltd. Distt. Kanchipuram Oragadam, Chennai 600017, Tamilanandu,

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP No.1 exparte.

Sh. KS Minhas, Adv Counsel for the OP No.2 and 3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is retired Principal from Ram Garhia College, Phagwara and having good reputation and status in the society. The complainant is a consumer for the respondents, as complainant has purchased one Car Renault Quid from the OP No.1, who is distributor for the OP No.2. As such, both the parties are responsible for the sale of the Car. Whereas OP No.3 the production manager is also responsible for the defective manufacturing of the Car, as such, he is also necessary party to the present complaint. The complainant purchased the said car on 30.03.2016 from the OP No.1. The said car was duly registered having a registration No.PB-08-DH-3866. From the day of the purchase of the Car, there was a defect i.e. shrill and crackling sound of Engine in the above said car. The complainant had made the complaint to this effect, but having got no response till date. The shrill and crackling sound may cause a serious damage that may result into fire in the Engine as well as in the Car. There was and still a shrill and crackling sound of engine in the above said car. The complainant has purchased the said Car on 30.03.2016 as per Invoice No.VSLA 15000279, issued by the OP No.1.

2. The complainant has been approaching the OP No.1 and has been reporting the matter and his grievances. It is worth mentioning that the service head Mr. P. S. Sandhu of OP No.1 had himself inspected the Car and took a drive in the said Car for a long distance along with the complainant, but being a mechanic unable to remove the manufacturing defect of the said engine, which result into shrill and crackling sound of Engine of the Car. It is worth while mentioning here that the said mechanic himself admitted that there is a defect in the engine and he fraudulently tried to get satisfactory certificate from the complainant against the said manufacturing defect. The complainant then tried to approach the production manager of the said Car i.e. the OP No.3 and sent the letter describing the grievance to the production manager. Copy of the said letter is placed on the file. However, the production manager flatly refused to receive the said letter. The returned letter is attached herewith. The matter with regard to the defective manufacturing of engine has been duly published in the newspaper 'The Times of India' dated 18.05.2016, in which, it was reported that the production of the engines has been stopped due to technical defect. The complainant number of times requested the OP No.1, but the OP did not ready to listen the genuine request of the complainant. Thereafter, one Mr. Vivek Bhardwaj, who introduced himself as cluster head M/s Padam Cars and assured him for replacement of engine of the Car and he sent a person on 22.07.2016 with a authority who has received the car along with signature of the complainant and initial for receiving the car along with the remark written by the complainant. The said repair order is also attached. But they returned the Car without any removal of the defect and without replacement of the defective engine. The complainant again gave a representation, vide letter dated 23.10.2016 to the OP No.2 and 3. The complainant made oral requests as well as written on so many occasions and also visited the office of OP No.1 at Jalandhar number of times, but the OP refused to listen the genuine request of the complainant. The OP No.2 is the owner and manufacturer of Renault Car and OP No.3 is a production manager, who is liable and responsible for the production and for defective engine and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to replace the engine of the Car, which have manufacturing defect and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and even the complainant is barred by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint and further averred that no cause of action has arisen to file the present complaint because there is no defect in the engine of the car purchased by the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant approached the OP No.1, the technical person having knowledge inspected the car of the complainant and no defect entitling the complainant to get the engine of the car replaced was found. That it is only the complainant, who is adamant and trying to put pressure upon the OP No.1 to get the engine of his car replaced. That the truth of the matter is that there is no defect in the engine of the car of the complainant, which requires replacement. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the said Car from the OP No.1, but regarding manufacturing defect in the Car is denied and also alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. OPs No.2 and 3 filed their separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous, malicious and vexatious. The complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset as far as answering OPs are concerned. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant with the sole intention of causing unnecessary duress and harm to the reputation and goodwill of the answering OPs and for extorting of money from the OPs and further alleged that the reliefs sought by the complainant regarding replacement of engine can be granted only if the complainant proves that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle after getting the same certified from an expert and further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the allegations of manufacturing defect made by the complainant until the same are substantiate with an Expert Opinion since the complainant does not have any technical qualification to make such allegations and therefore, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the complainant's main grievance is against the OP No.1 regarding the alleged vehicle sold to the complainant had shrill and crackling sound of engine or not. The answering OPs have no role to play in sale of a vehicle by the dealer to buyer and therefore, the complaint against the answering OPs is not maintainable. On merits, the car in question purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 is not denied and further regarding publishing a news in the Newspaper 'Times of India' is not categorically denied, but alleged that it is the secondary evidence and complainant required to prove the same by leading primary evidence. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and make a request for further opportunity to the evidence of the OP, but neither the OP No.1 nor its counsel appeared and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 08.12.2017. The counsel for the OP No.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and then closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone scanned the file very minutely.

8. Precisely, the case set up by the complainant is that he purchased one Car Renault Quid from the OP No.1 on 30.03.2016, after purchasing, the car was duly got registered with the office of DTO and registration number is PB-08-DH-3866, but since the day of purchase, there was a defect in the car i.e. “shrill and crackling sound of engine”, regarding that defect, matter was brought to the notice of OP No.1, who could not able to rectify the said defect and even the matter was brought to the notice of the OP No.3, who is a Production Manager of the Manufacturing Firm/OP No.2, but all the efforts of the complainant remained fruitless and ultimately, the instant complaint filed.

9. The claim of the complainant refuted by the OPs simply on the ground that there is no manufacturing defect in the car, if so then, the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the car, refund of the price of the car and moreover, whenever complainant made any issue in regard to defect in the car, then OP always cooperate with the complainant and checked the car, but no defect was found at any stage and as such, the instant complaint of the complainant is without merits and moreover, there is no expert evidence came on the file just to prove that there is a manufacturing defect and thus, complaint is not maintainable. In support of this version, the counsel for the OP made a reliance upon a pronouncement of Hon'ble National Commission, cited in 2009 (3) C.P.J. 229, titled as “Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and anothers”, 2013 (3) C.P.J. 196 NC, titled as “Khanna Authomobiles and another Vs. Rajesh Kumar” and 2014 (1) C.P.R 717 NC, titled as “Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal”.

10. We have considered the respective submission and also gone through the pleadings as well as aforesaid judgments and found that the complainant in order to substantiate his claim, produced on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reiterated the entire story as elaborated in the complaint in regard to prove that there is a manufacturing defect in the car and further complainant proved on the file Bill of the Car Ex.C-5 and one news item published in the Newspaper “Times of India” on 13.10.2016 and photostat copy of said news item is produced on the file Ex.C-4 and original complete newspaper also produced on the file by the complainant, if we go through the said news item, which is under the heading “Renault-Nissan recalls 51,000 units of Kwid and redi-go”. Due to some defect, the OP No.2/Manufacturing Firm has recalled huge quantity of car due to some defect and car of the complainant is also of the car, which covered under the said cars, which had been called by the manufacturing firm. So, one thing is admitted that the car so purchased by the complainant is having some defect and due to that reason, the said model of the car had been called by the manufacturing firm. The said news item is alleged by the complainant in the complaint and the same has not been denied by the OP No.2 and 3 i.e. manufacturing firm rather gave an evasive reply that the news item came in the Newspaper is a secondary evidence, but we do not agree with this version of the OP because if the said news had not been got published by the manufacturing firm, then the OP has take specifically plea in the written reply that the said news was never got published by the OP. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the said news was got published by the OPs i.e. manufacturing firm and from that angle, the car so purchased by the complainant is covered under the cars, which generally having a defect and as such, the complainant is not required to prove and produce on the file any expert witness because the OP itself established that there is a defect in the car.

11. Apart from above, the complainant has taken a plea in Para No.3 of the complaint that he reported the matter to the OP No.1, who appointed the Head Mechanic Mr. PS Sandhu, who inspected the car and took a drive in the said car and these factum has not been denied by the OP No.1 rather the OP No.1 categorically admitted that the said Mr. PS Sandhu had inspected the car and took a drive, if the mechanic of the OP No.1 inspected the car, on the complaint of the complainant that there is a some defect, then ball goes in the courtyard of the OP to disprove the allegation of the complainant by examining the said Head Mechanic Mr. PS Sandhu, who inspected the car, but for the best known reason, the OP has not examined the said Head Mechanic, who mechanically inspected the car, so non-examination of said mechanic of the OP No.1, it is presumed that there is a defect in the engine of the car, which gave shrill and crackling sound of the engine.

12. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that the complainant has not required to produce on the file any expert witness and thus, the rulings referred by the learned counsel for the OP (Supra) 2009(3) C.P.J. 229, 2013(3) C.P.J. 196 and 2014(1) C.P.R. 717, are not applicable in the present case being the facts of that ruling of Hon'ble National Commission are not identical to the facts of the case in hand. Ultimately, we reached to the conclusion that the complainant is able to prove his case and therefore, we conclude that he is entitled for the relief as claimed.

13. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the engine of the car, which having a manufacturing defect and further, the OPs are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, to the complainant for mental and physical harassment and OPs are also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-.The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

19.06.2018 Member President