Haryana

Karnal

CC/47/2018

Dalip Kumar Chandna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Renault India Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Gupta

06 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 47 of 2018

                                                          Date of instt.28.02.2018

                                                          Date of Decision 06.01.2020.

 

Dalip Kumar Chandna son of Shri Mukand Lal Chandna resident of House no.38-A, Pritam Nagar, Karnal (Haryana).

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) Head Office-ASV Ramana Towers, # 37-38, 4^th floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600 017, through its Managing Director/authorized signatory.

2. Managing Director/Authorized signatory M/s Renault India Private Limited (RIPL)-Head Office-ASV Ramana Towers, # 37-38, 4^th floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

3. M/s Aseem Auto Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/authorized signatory, 118/7 K.M. Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal -132001, District Karnal.

4. Managing Director/authorized signatory, M/s Aseem Auto Pvt. Ltd. 118/7, K.M. Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal-132001, District Karnal.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik……Member   

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vinod Kumar Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Sandeep Rana Advocate for OPs no.1 and 2.

                   Shri B.S. Panwar Advocate for OPs no.3 and 4.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant purchased a KWID (RXT) car from OP no.3. It was registered vide registration no.HR05-AR-7254.  After few months of purchase of the said car, the complainant noticed that a lot of unusual sounds/unnecessary noises from its engine as well as problem in shifting/changing 1^st & 2^nd gear and also came across with low mileage of the car. Then the complainant immediately contacted to the office of the OPs no.3 and 4 and apprised the said problems, however the sales executive of OPs no.3 and 4 assured the complainant that the problems would automatically resolved after the 1^st service of the car. Thereafter, the complainant being aggrieved from the unusual/unnecessary sounds/noises as well as other problems, complained in this regard to the service manager of OPs no.3 and 4, during the first service of the car and at the time of subsequent service as well and also apprised about the problems being faced by him. Though each and every time, the complainant was assured to check and resolve the problem, however, the same could not be resolved.

2.             Upon the repeated complaints and great persistence of the complainant, the OPs called the car for inspection and checking of fuel system and fitted of fuel hose clip or any other intervention, vide letter dated 19.10.2016 issued by one Sudhir Malhotra, Head After Sales and Customer Care for and on behalf of OPs no.1 and 2 and upon finding some defects allegedly changed some part of the car, vide invoice no.SERINVCKAJA17002250 dated 23.11.2016. Thereafter, the complainant was again assured that the problem of engine noises/sounds as well as other problems would no longer persist. But the problem of the noises is as it is and it gives bad feeling while sitting in the car. Complainant made many complaints and sent emails in this regard to the OPs but neither any team approached to the complainant nor the problem in respect of unusual engine noises/sounds as well as low mileage etc. could be resolved/rectified. It seems that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the car. The complainant has been requesting the OPs no.3 and 4 time and again to remove the defect but the officials of the postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed written version stating therein that OPs no.1 and 2 are not a necessary party to the instant complaint and the complainant has falsely implicated the OPs no.1 and 2 in the instant complaint. So that the complainant can make a wrongful gain for himself and can cause a wrongful loss to the OPs no.1 and 2. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the Authorized Dealer of the OPs no.1 and 2. The relationship between OPs no.1 and 2 and OPs no.3 and 4 is based on the Principle to Principle Basis and there is no Principal Agent relationship between the OPs and therefore OPs no.1 and 2 is not a necessary party to the complaint. It is further stated that complainant is neither having any expertise nor is an Automotive Expert to state that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect and neither has the complainant has taken any Expert Opinion to support his allegations of manufacturing defect. It is further stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant failed to provide any expert opinion with reference to the alleged inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further stated that OPs never approached or contacted the complainant for the sale or purchase of the vehicle, infact the complainant himself approached the Authorized Dealers of the OPs no.1 and 2 and put forward his desire to purchase the said vehicle in question.  It is further stated that the vehicle in question was not having any manufacturing defect if the manufacturing defect in the vehicle was such of a chronic nature then complainant would not have been in a position to drive the vehicle for 2 long years as the complainant purchase the car in the year 2016. It is to be noted here that if the problem in the vehicle was “from the very inception of its purchase” the complainant should have filed the complaint then only and not after driving the vehicle for 2 years. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.1 and 2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OPs no.3 and 4 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant was satisfied with the features of the car and he had taken the test ride of the car and after satisfying he purchased the car. It is further pleaded that there was no unusual sound in the car as alleged. The complainant was appraised of the sound of the car in comparison to other Kwid car sound whereby nothing unusual sound was noticed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant came in the workshop of the OPs no.3 and 4 on 06.05.2016 at Km. reading 1256. First service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. Test riding was taken by the complainant and after satisfaction, he signed the job card. It is further pleaded that on 23.11.2016 at Km. reading of 4167, the car was reported for the workshop of the OPs no.3 and 4 for routine check up and the complainant did not report about any engine noise. A routine check up was done and the complainant was satisfied with the work. A job car was opened and after satisfaction, the same was signed by the complainant. There is no unusual sound in the engine. The engine is quite normal comparable to any other engine of Kwid car. It is mere perception of the complainant regarding the apprehension of damage or loss of any kind as alleged. It is wrong to say that there is any manufacturing defect in the engine of the car as alleged. It is also wrong to say that the OPs sold a defective car to the complainant as alleged. It is further stated that on 22.02.2017 at Km. reading of 5790, the car was reported in the service centre of the OPs for second service. No abnormal sound of the engine was observed nor reported by the complainant. The job was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. On 12.01.2018 at Km. reading of 10837, the car was reported for some defects which were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. So far as the engine sounds, the engine was at that time over racing because of the accelerator paddle. The defect was corrected with the adjustments of accelerator paddle and related components. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and test ride was given to the complainant on 12.01.2018. On the persistent request made by the complainant, the OPs no.3 and 4 kept the car in the workshop for inspection and the complainant took back the car on 24.01.2018 and car was delivered to the complainant, test ride was given to the complainant and a test ride of another car of same kind was given to him. After satisfying the test ride, the complainant took back the car. On 15.02.2018 at a Km. reading of 11340, the car was reported for 3^rd service. It is further pleaded that the free services and job under warranty were done as per the policy laid down by the Renault India. Where consumable and certain jobs like wheel adjustment etc. are not under warranty, which were charged from the complainant after explaining to him and after giving consent by the complainant, the said job was done and amount was charged. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs no.3 and 4. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C35 and closed the evidence on 16.09.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Abha Tiwari Ex.OP1/A and document Ex.OP1. OPs no.3 and 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gulshan Khaterpal Ex.OP3/1and documents Ex.OP3/A to Ex.OP3/D and closed the evidence on 14.11.2019.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased a KWID (RXT) car from OP no.3. It was registered vide registration no.HR05-AR-7254.  After few months of purchase of the said car, the complainant noticed that a lot of unusual sounds/unnecessary noises from its engine as well as problem in shifting/changing 1^st & 2^nd gear and also came across with low mileage of the car. Then the complainant immediately contacted to the office of the OPs no.3 and 4 and complained in this regard. OPs no.3 and 4 checked the car and made their best efforts to resolve the problem of the car but they failed to do so. There is manufacturing defect the said car. The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case C.N. Anantharam Versus Flat India Ltd. Special Leave Petition (c) Nos 21178-21180 of 2009 decided on 24.11.2019 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Sales of goods Act, 1930, Section 12(3)-Defective goods-Grant of damages equivalent to price of goods-Petitioner purchasing a car-Its engine found to the defective-Manufacturing Company replacing the engine-Petitioner wanted replacement of car, because it had inherent manufacturing defects-Contention of company that car had no inherent manufacturing defect-Supreme Court directed that car be checked by independent technical expert and if in the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and lifetime road tax and EMI alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and costs.

9.             On the other hand, the case of the OPs no.1 and 2 is that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the Authorized Dealer of the OPs no.1 and 2. The relationship between OPs no.1 and 2 and OPs no.3 and 4 is based on the Principle to Principle Basis and there is no Principal Agent relationship between the OPs and therefore OPs no.1 and 2 is not a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant is neither having any expertise nor is an Automotive Expert to state that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect and neither has the complainant has taken any Expert Opinion to support his allegations of manufacturing defect. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant failed to provide any expert opinion with reference to the alleged inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

10.            The case of the OPs no.3 and 4, in brief, is that the complainant was satisfied with the features of the car and he had taken the test ride of the car and after satisfying he purchased the car. There was no unusual sound in the car as alleged. The complainant was appraised of the sound of the car in comparison to other Kwid car sound whereby nothing unusual sound was noticed by the complainant. The complainant came in the workshop of the OPs no.3 and 4 on 06.05.2016 at Km. reading 1256. First service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. Test riding was taken by the complainant and after satisfaction, he signed the job card.  On 23.11.2016 at Km. reading of 4167, the car was reported for the workshop of the OPs no.3 and 4 for routine check up and the complainant did not report about any engine noise. A routine check up was done and the complainant was satisfied with the work. A job car was opened and after satisfaction, the same was signed by the complainant. There is no unusual sound in the engine. The engine is quite normal comparable to any other engine of Kwid car. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the engine of the car as alleged.

11.            Admittedly, the vehicle in question i.e. Renault Kwid RXT has been purchased by the complainant from the OP no.3 and got it registered, vide registration no.HR-05-AR-7254. After purchasing the aforesaid vehicle, it started giving a lot of unusual sound/unnecessary noise from its engine as well as problem in shifting/changing first and second gear and also with low mileage. Service Manager of OPs no.3 and 4 assured that the problem will be resolved but the same could not. Complainant made complaint to OP no.1 on 19.02.2017 as well as informed telephonically which was responded by the OPs, but the mechanics of OPs failed to remove the defects. On the other hand, OPs no.3 and 4 also admitted in their written version that there are defects in the car. It is also submitted by them that there is engine sound due to over racing, because of accelerator paddle and admitted that car remained with them from 12.01.2018 to 24.01.2018 but they failed to remove the defects. It is also admitted that in order to remove the defect the OPs changed the pedestal paddle of the vehicle, despite that the defect could not be removed. Even otherwise, the objections filed by the complainant, to report of SDE, Mechanical, was not replied for and on behalf of OPs, which amounts to admission regarding the point taken in the objections for and on behalf of the OPs.

12.            The complainant has placed on record report Ex.C22 of Er. J.K. Sharma, Automobile Engineer, wherein who also found abnormal noise in the Normal rpm. It is also reported therein that there was engine vibration that may be due to the fault in setting of electronic system particularly for ECU and electronically controlled nozzle or there may be defect in sensor or in wiring. Shri J.K. Sharma, Automobile Engineer concluding that the manufacturing defects are present in the car and high temperature was noted at speed of 80-85 Kms and the vehicle stopped. This may be due to engine problem and this may be a manufacturing defect and it can lead to road accident endangering life of the passengers. A bluish smoke was noted and this may be due to less power of engine and the car is not fit for an innocent buyers, car is having the potential to seriously affect the life of car and harm and endanger the lives of the passengers and the passersby; the vehicle is not safe to be driven on busy road and the car is not fit for innocent buyer and the performance of the tested car was highly unsatisfactory and clearly mal functions due to multiple reasons and due to this may not be repairable, especially in the long run.

13.            On the application of the complainant, the vehicle has been examined by SDE, mechanical Sub Division, PWE (B&R) Karnal, who submitted the report dated 16.05.2019. As per report there is no defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. Said report has been objected by the complainant on the ground that SDE is of mechanical side and has no knowledge about the Automobiles Engineering and there is lot of difference between mechanical side and automobiles side. Non reply of OPs to the objections filed by the complainant regarding report of SDE Mechanical amounts to the admission regarding the point taken in the objections on behalf of them. The learned counsel for the complainant further submits that at the time of pre-sale negotiation, the sale person of the OPs quoted the mileage of 25 Kms per ltr., whereas the mileage of the vehicle in question, as per the inspection is only 15 Kms per ltr., while a vehicle having 799 CC of Engine ought to have the mileage of at least 25 Kms.

14.            From the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there are manufacturing defects in the vehicle of the complainant. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is fully applicable in the present case. The act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the OPs are liable to replace the vehicle of the complainant or refund the amount of the vehicle.

15.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 2(being manufacturers) to replace the vehicle in question of the same make, model and same value. If the same is not available with the OPs then OPs no.1 and 2 are liable to refund the cost of the vehicle with other expenses i.e. Road Tax and Insurance premium paid by the complainant. We further direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses  The complainant is also directed to transfer the vehicle in question in the name of OPs and handover the same to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:06.01.2020       

                                                                                                                                                                           President,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes                                                            Redressal Forum, Karnal.      

 

 

           (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                Member                                    Member