Haryana

Panchkula

CC/264/2015

RAJINDER SINGLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S RENAULT INDAI PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN SINGLA.

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                

Consumer Complaint No	:	264 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.06.2016

                                                                                          

Mr.Rajinder Singla, General Power of attorney of Sh.Jatinder Singla, R/o # 1113, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. M/s Renault India (P) Ltd. through its M.D.ASV Ramana Tower, # 37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.
2. M/s Padam Motors (P) Ltd., through its Executive Director/Authorized Signatory, Renault Tricity, Plot No.363, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula.
3. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO 325, IInd Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula.
4. M/s Premier Motor Garage Autos (P) Ltd. through its M.D./Director/Authorised Signatory, Industrial Area, 47, Phase I, U.T., Chandigarh.
5. M/s Swami Auto Care (P) Ltd., authorized service station of Mahindra First Choice, Village Singhpura, Zirakpur, Mohali.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor , Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Krishan Singla, Advocate for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Chetan Gupta, Advocate, for the Op No.1.

                             Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the OP No.2.

                             Mr.Ram Avtar, Advocate for the OP No.3.

                             OP No.4 already ex-parte.

                             Defence of Op No.5 struck off.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint, by virtue of general power of attorney which executed in his favour, against the Ops with the averments that Sh.Jatinder Singla purchased a Renault Fluence LZBB06 car from the Op No.4 manufactured by OP No.1 for the use of his father Sh.Rajinder Singla with warranty of two years or 50,000 kms whichever is earlier. The extended warranty has also been purchased under consideration by the complainant. From the very day of purchase, the vehicle was giving problem in alignment, chrome, balancing of vehicle went out immediately when it runs on the road and the complainant also brought the fact to the notice of Op No.4. Thereafter, whenever the complainant got checked the alignment of vehicle, the OP told him that same had been rectified but it proved fertile (futile) later on. Due to which, the tyres of car were also worn out excessively and all the four tyres needed replacement. Due to which, it was very difficult to control the vehicle without proper alignment and balancing. The complainant approached the OPNo.2 i.e. authorized service center who charged Rs.16,722/- for repair of vehicle on 09.10.2013 (Annexure C-6 & C-7) whereas the vehicle was within warranty. The complainant requested the Ops number of times to remove the manufacturing defect but to no avail. The complainant was also promised that the vehicle fuel average was 16/18 km/Lt but it never crossed 12km/Lt., which was reported to the OP’s workshop but the same has never been rectified. On 10.08.2015, the vehicle of the complainant broke down near Singh Dwar, MDC, Panchkula and the complainant tried to restart it twice but it did not start. The complainant was accompanied with his wife at that time. The complainant informed the Op No.2 who suggested the complainant to call on toll free number of their tow away service helpline and he called them. The tow vehicle took the vehicle to the workshop of Op No.3 but the shutter of workshop was shut down. The driver of tow vehicle handed over the vehicle to the security guard by filing a form and parked it outside the workshop. The complainant visited Op No.3 next day and saw that the mechanic staff opened the bonnet of the car without issuing a job sheet. The incharge of workshop Mr.Shashi Bhushan told the complainant that the engine needed overhauling and also told that the job card would be made in the presence of the surveyor of insurance company but the surveyor was called in the absence of the complainant who refused to lodge the claim in the absence of gate pass. Next day, when the complainant approached the Op No.3 the job card was not opened with the excuse that surveyor would inspect the vehicle. After few days, the complainant was told that engine of the vehicle had to be overhauled since there was some defect in the engine. The complainant asked that without inspecting the vehicle, how they said that the vehicle needed overhauling and they replied that they were expert in that field so it was easy to diagnosis the vehicle only in first sight. The complainant requested the Op No.2 to inspect the vehicle from the engineer of Op No.1 who after inspection told the Op No.2 that not to overhaul the engine since there was nothing wrong to engine & told them to repair it and replaced the required parts only. Thereafter, job card was issued and the vehicle was repaired. At the time of towing the vehicle, the left side fender got damaged which were only because of Op No.2 as they instead of calling towing van, the vehicle was loaded in canter. The Op No.2 issued invoice of Rs.25,364/- and Rs.11,400/- for painting. The complainant told them that the vehicle was under warranty but the Op No.2 refused to deliver the vehicle. Under compelled circumstances, the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- on 27.08.2015, Rs.5364/- and Rs.11,400/- on 02.09.2015 and got the delivery of his vehicle. The complainant also issued legal notice to the Ops but to no avail. This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the complainant filed the present complaint on false grounds. It is submitted that the complainant has not placed any expertise report that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the nature of agreement between the Op No.1 and Ops No.2 & 4 was on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that the OP No.1 is completely independent and autonomous in its functioning. It is submitted that as per clause 3 of the Dealership agreement between the Ops is as under:-

“No Agency-

The relationship between RIPL and the dealer shall be on the Principal to Principal basis. Therefore, nothing in this agreement shall be construed as authorizing the Dealer to act, register or otherwise represent itself as agent of RIPL.”

It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a leading global automaker with a well established reputation of providing quality cars and services. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a customer centric company with customer satisfaction being its basic motto. It is submitted that whatever charges were incurred for the vehicle were all legitimate expenses that were required to be paid for consumables and thus were chargeable in accordance with the terms of warranty. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the vehicle has no manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the problem of alignment/balancing/wearing out the tires and low average of the vehicle has never been reported to the Op No.2. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant stopped due to “hydro static lock” due to which the engine of the vehicle ceased. It is submitted that the hydrostatic lock occurred in the vehicle when it was taken into deep water and it stopped in the water and thereafter, the same attempted to re-start in the deep waters. In the said process, the water entered into the engine and engine was ceased and the said defect was not covered under the warranty or under the insurance cover.  It is submitted that the complainant alleged that the damage to the vehicle by transporter TVS Automobile Solution Ltd but has not impeaded the transporter as it had clearly mentioned that the damaged was existing earlier in the form. It is submitted that the present complaint is time barred. It is submitted that the complainant had filed the complaint by virtue of general power of attorney but had placed on record the Special power of attorney and not general power of attorney. It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased by Mr.Jatinder Singla from the Op No.4 with warranty of two years or uptill 50,000km. It is denied that the vehicle was giving problem from the day of purchase. It is submitted that the complainant-Mr.Jatinder Singla never complained regarding alignment, balancing, excessive tyre wear etc. It is submitted that the accidental damages were not covered under the warranty. It is denied that the complainant was promised that the vehicle fuel average would be 16/18 km/ per liter. It is submitted that the fuel average depended upon many factors such as driving skills, maintenance of vehicle, fuel used, the roads on which the vehicle is usually run etc. It is submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle to Op No.2 which the workshop had closed down for the day. It is submitted that the surveyor came to inspect the vehicle but he refused to allow the repair under insurance finding, the damage/effect due to hydrostatic lock and on this account the complainant had dispute with insurance company. It is denied that the engineer of OP No.1 was ever called or such engineer inspected the vehicle. It is submitted that the repair was carried out with the consent of complainant that the same would be chargeable. It is denied that during the transit, the bumper and fender of the vehicle was damaged. It is submitted that neither the repair job was covered under warranty nor was the accidental repair covered under warranty. It is submitted that the repairs were done with prior intimation regarding charging of the amount and the complainant could only take the delivery after paying the amount. It is denied that the complainant paid the amount under protest. It is submitted that the vehicle remained with the Op No.2 from 10.08.2015 to 02.09.2015 due to carrying on repairs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed its written statement. It is submitted that the vehicle No.CH-01-AL-5696 was insured in the name of Jatinder Singla vide private car package policy No.231202/31/2014/8868 for the period from 10.11.2014 to 09.11.2015 subject to conditions, clauses, warranties, exclusions, IMTs and endorsements. It is submitted that the complainant has himself admitted that there was a mechanical problem in the vehicle like alignment, chrome, balancing of vehicle went out immediately when it ran on the road and the vehicle was taken to Op No.2 for service of his vehicle. It is submitted that after receiving the intimation from the insured, the Op No.3 deputed Sh.Vinod Bhan, Surveyor who visited the workshop of Op No.2 and inspected the vehicle and assessed the labour charges of Rs.5,132/-. It is submitted that the surveyor submitted his report with the claim in term of policy condition and with the following observations:-

“This claim was reported as flood loss and water had entered in air filter after dismantling no engine part was found damaged due to flood, the self starter had damaged due to electric breakdown which is not covered. The repairer flashed the engine and car body carpeting and same has been assessed for”

It is submitted that after receipt of survey report, the Op No.3 had written to the complainant vide letter dated 21.09.2015 that as per survey report, the damages were not payable as per policy conditions and before setting the claim as per survey report to clarify the facts within 15 days otherwise the file would be closed as no claim but no reply has been received from the complainant and the file was closed. It is submitted that the complainant had never approached the Op No.3 or submitted vehicle’s documents for settlement of claim as per survey report and as per terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. Notice was issued to Op No.4 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of Op No.4. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.4 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.12.2015.
6. The Op No.5 appeared before this Forum but did not file any written statement after availing many opportunities and the defence of Op No.5 was struck off vide order dated 16.02.2016.
7. In order to prove their case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A  alongwith documents Annexure  C-1 to C-16 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith documents Annexure R2/1 to R2/4 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
9.  Admittedly, the car of the complainant, purchased from Op No.4 manufactured by Op No.1 purchased by Sh.Jatinder Singla for the use of his father Sh.Rajinder Singla on 07.10.2013, the car was taken to Op No.2 (authorized service center) for service who charged Rs.16,722/- (Annexure C-6 & C-7) for repair of vehicle. On 10.08.2015, vehicle was broke down near Singh Dwar, M.D.C., Panchkula. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.2.  The Op No.2 after checking and inspecting the vehicle of the complainant, identified the problem as hydro-static lock, the repair of which have been denied by the Ops under warranty. The repair of the vehicle in question done by Op No.2 after receipt an amount of Rs.36,764/- (Rs.20,000/- on 27.08.2015, Rs.5,364/- and Rs.11,400/- on 02.09.2015) (Annexure C-10, C-11 and C-13) from the complainant is also admitted.
10. The main grouse of the complainant is that there was a manufacturing defect in the car which resulted in the said problem or there was some other defect in the car which was not revealed by the Ops. It is contended that the said repair was to be done by the Ops No.1 and 2 under warranty as it was done on account of vehicle’s having manufacturing defect.
11. On the other hand, the Ops while denying any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question has taken a stand that the vehicle has the problem on account of hydro-static lock, which occurred on account of the fact that the vehicle was sub-merged in the water and it sucked water, which resulted in the hydro-static lock and the said act of the complainant is excluded under warranty, hence, the repairs were done on the payment basis. It is argued that the car was delivered immediately after the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.
12. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the documents on record, it has been made out that it is an undisputed fact as well as proved from (Annexure C-2) placed on record by the complainant himself that the vehicle in question was sold on 22.11.2011 had covered 35788 kms till 10.08.2015 (Annexure C-9) since the day of its sale. This very fact establishes that the vehicle in question has been extensively used. Had there been any inherent manufacturing defect or any serious defect in the vehicle at the time of sale it could not have been covered that much distance.
13. Moreover, the onus to prove the said problem as manufacturing defect in the car in question, squarely lies on the complainant, which he has not been able to prove by leading an expert evidence/opinion to that effect. Therefore, in the absence of any such expert evidence/proof, it cannot be said that vehicle in question was having any manufacturing defect due to which there occurred the problem of hydro-static lock in the car in question. Mere verbal assertion of the complainant holds no ground. Therefore, the plea of the complainant that the alleged problem had occurred due to inherent manufacturing is bereft of any merit and without any substance.
14. Furthermore, since the complainant has failed to prove by way of expert evidence or cogent evidence that the alleged problem/trouble of the hydro-static lock had occurred in his car due to any manufacturing defect, it point out towards the improper use and negligent manner in which the car was being used by the complainant, otherwise there seems to be no reason of sudden hydro-static lock problem in the car, especially when it successfully covered 35788 kms in about 4 years period since the date of purchase.
15. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing at entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint is meritless. Therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

03.06.2016      S.P.ATTRI            ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER         MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT