D.O.F: 24/07/2013
D.O.O: 08/11/2018
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.169/13
Dated this, the 08th day of November 2018
PRESENT:
SRI.ROY PAUL :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
C.A. Abdul Rasheed , S/o C. Abdulla,
C.A.House , P O Road,R.D.Nagar, Choori,Kasragod. : Complainant
(Adv: Srikanta Shetty.K)
1. M/S Renault India Pvt Ltd(RIPL),
Head Office, ASV Ramana Towers,#37-38, 4th Floor,
Venketanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600017 : Opposite Parties
Represented by its Managing Director.
( Adv:S.K.Krishnakumar)
2. M/S T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited,
Registered Office, TVS Building, 7-B west veli Street,
Madurai-625001
Represented by its Managing Director.
3. Sales- Manager,
T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd,
Renault Mangalore, Div Dev Building,
Oppo: Karavali College,Bangrakolur, Kottara Chowki-575013
( Adv. P .Narayanan for OP2 &3)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased a brand new RENAULT-DUSTER-110 PS RXL car from Opposite Party No.3, as per invoice ref: No.VSLA12500447 dtd. 13-02-2013 for Rs 10,68,699/- ( Ex- show room price ) and after insurance policy, process charge Road tax, all incurred in total Rs. 12,50,000/-. The Opposite Party.No.1 is the manufacturer and Opposite Party.No.2 and 3 are the authorized sales and service agents of the Renault India Pvt. Ltd Company cars. The car so sold to complainant as per sale certificate, Certificate of compliance with pollution standards, invoice letters issued by Opposite Parties wherein the descriptions of the CHASSIS No. MEEHSRA36C5-000184, ENGINE No.K9K 886D000392 seen, in fact on physical verification from Motor Registering authority, Kasaragod the chassis Number embossed in the said car is MEEHSRC36C5-000184. Hence the complainant’s said car registration rejected. The complainant booked his fancy number also. This particular facts are immediately informed by complainant by approaching personally to Opposite Party.No.3, but instead of rectifying the mistakes, Opposite Party.No.3, the staff and Managers made mockery of complainant by saying ‘ it is his fate, run the vehicle as such’. The answer by Opposite Party.No.3 is not expected from a responsible and reputed Company like M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. This is an irresponsible attitude, and moreover it is the prime responsibility of the No.1 to 3 to rectify the mistakes of the said car and get it set right to enable the complainant to register his car and enable him to run for his domestic purpose. That Opposite Parties shown sheer negligence and deficiency of service which attracts compensation for each day delay @ Rs. 25,000/- till the complainant’s grievance solved. Moreover complainant could not use his new vehicle so purchased for his personal requirements, and is kept idle without any use since it was not registered. The false description of the chassis number embossed in complainant’s car is entered in Insurance Policy of Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co, Mangalore and the vehicle is under loan arrangements with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The complainant individually done his effort by approaching several times the Opposite Party.No.3 and when he felt that his voice of grievance have no respect, the complainant by Lawyer Notice dated 27-04-2013 requested the Opposite Parties to take immediate steps to rectify the mistakes of the chassis number of complainant’s car within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice. The referred notice dtd. 27-04-2013 of the Lawyer received by Opposite Party.No.3 on 30-04-2013 and by Opposite Party No.1Renault India Pvt. Ltd on 02-05-2013, there was neither any response from any of the responsible parties of the Company nor shown any courtesy to rectify the defects with any alternate relief to complainant. Hence complainant lodged complaint which before the JMFC-111 Court of Mangalore, the Criminal complaint which duly referred and registered as crime No. 122/2013 of Kavoor Police Station at present under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the Opposite Parties.
After registering the F.I.R., the Sales Manager came to know about the FIR and called complainant for a talk of compromise on 12-06-2013 at 5 PM at Renault showroom of Mangalore. On the same day, Kavoor Police also called complainant to produce documents and car for collection of evidence during investigation. Complainant first visited Opposite Party.No.3 along with his Advocate. Talks held in the presence of one Mr.Saji, who introduced himself as Legal Advisor of the TVS Company, but before finalization of talk complainant thought of getting permission of the Investigation Officer before handover the documents and car to the Opposite Party.No.3. Hence the complainant went to Kavoor Police Station. As part of the Investigation the Kavoor Police took custody of the Form 21 and 22 of the said car and advised that if settlement is to be done, do so within 10 days and that is to be reported by accused side to the station and complainant has to give his consent signing the compromise applications because the Investigating Officer has to intimate the Court about the charge sheet. Thereafter complainant along with his Advocate again returned to show room. When the proceedings of Police Station are informed to Mr. Saji .Then Mr.Saji behaved rudely with complainant and his Advocate, ultimately compromise talk failed. The real intention of plan of compromise of the Opposite Party were by collecting the car and it’s documents to destroy the evidence of the Investigation of Crime No. 122/2013 causing loss to the complainant without any benefit from Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties were not prepared to co-operate with the legal procedure. The complainant is law abiding citizen and he will step forward only as per law. Later even though the earlier compromise broke, the complainant as gesture for further amicable settlement again sent lawyer notice dt. 18-06-2013 to Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 replied. That the Opposite Party No.1 mentioned that the complainant has to keep the car in their show room so that the Opposite Party No.3 will take the responsibility of rectify the defect. The complainant was prepared for rectification because he suffered a lot and fed up with the purchase of the said car and was with a hope at least that he will get his car rectified and other police complaint and compensation matter will be relegated it’s on recourse in Court of law. But when the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 on 17-07-2013, then the Opposite Party No.3 told the complainant that unless FIR against the Company is withdrawn his car will not be received. Hence that effort of the complainant for settlement also failed. The complainant suffered a lot due to the deficiency of sale and after sale services of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties shown unfair trade practice with their customer / complainant. The Opposite Parties aware of the wrong chassis number embossed in the complainant’s car.
Complainant further informs that he purchased the car by availing loan from the financier Mahindra & Mahindra and their interest payment under the loan is a unnecessary burden for complainant. The procedure adopted by the Company bringing the fake vehicle without legal documents and supplying to the customer as genuine car as per record is unfair trade practice. The different car supplied by to the complainant from the documents supplied by the Opposite Parties were detected and known to the complainant only at the inspection of the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Kasaragod, thereby cause of action for the complaint arose. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of a total of Rs. 19, 00,000/- and a costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
As per the version filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, it is stated that the complaint that chassis number ingrained in the engine of the Duster vehicle differs from the chassis number recorded in the sales invoice/ documents is this rarest of rare one, due to a technical glitch in the computer software. The Opposite Party No.1 has already apologized for this rarest of rare error. Immediately on coming to know this mistake, the Opposite Party has offered to rectify the same and has also volunteered to pay 12% interest on the total consideration to the complainant till date of returning the vehicle after rectifying the mistake. The Opposite Party No.1 has not stopped with extending its offers to the complainant. Opposite Party No.1, as a responsible company has earnestly made all efforts to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has also issued necessary letter clarifying the matter to the concerned Regional Transport Officer and has requested the RTO to register the vehicle immediately. The complainant had not till date brought the vehicle to Opposite Party No.1, for rectifying the chassis number. The complainant is advised to leave the vehicle at the show room of Opposite Party No.1 and also offered to pick and drop the vehicle at the doorstep of the complainant for this rectification. Opposite Party No.1 will take the vehicle to its service station. Rectification of chassis number may not take much time and the vehicle will be returned to the complainant on the same day. Also the Opposite Party No.1 has agreed to pay 12% interest on the total consideration to the complainant from the date of sale till date of returning the vehicle after rectifying the mistake. They denies all other allegations of the complainant and the complaint as prayed for is devoid of any merits and is liable to dismissed.
As stated in the beginning Opposite Party No.1 had extended its efforts to rectify the mistake, help the complainant to register the vehicle with the RTO and to use the vehicle as soon as possible, without delay. There is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The difference in chassis number is the rarest of rare error arisen due to a technical glitch. Opposite Party No.1 immediately on coming to know of this mistake had at its cost offered to rectify the mistake and agreed to pay interest as stated above. Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation including Rs. 25,000/- per day’s delay as alleged by the complainant, who seeks to enrich himself by the delay rather mitigate the same. The Opposite Party No.1 is here in India to sell its various products and never intends to cause any inconvenience whatever to any of its customers. The allegation that the real intention of the Opposite Parties was to destroy the evidence is absolutely wrong, defamatory, without any basis and stoutly denied. As stated in the beginning, immediately on coming to know this mistake in chassis number, the Opposite Party No.1 as a responsible company has earnestly made all out efforts to mitigate the convenience caused to the complainant .Filing criminal complaint before JMFC III. Mangalore and visiting police are not at all warranted. The complainant has ventured in to police and criminal complaints only with an ulterior motive to extract as much money as possible from the Opposite Parties and also get free of cost a new Duster vehicle from the Opposite Party No1. The complainant did not get the rectification done for reasons best known to him. The other averments are all denied. The complainant’s alleged suspicion that the chassis of his car is some old or accidental car’s chassis or exchanged car’s chassis assemble with engine is absolutely false, without any basis and vehemently denied. The vehicle sold has no manufacturing defects, to claim for replacement of vehicle with new vehicle and once the chassis number is rectified, it is perfectly road worthy and the relief asked for by the complainant, i.e., return of money for the vehicle purchased is not equitable and cannot be granted. It is vehemently denied that the vehicle sold to the complainant is a fake one. It is stoutly denied that Opposite Party No.1 has brought the vehicle with fake documents. It is specifically denied that the Opposite Party No.1 has indulged in unfair practices by supplying vehicles without legal documents. The allegations are without basis, defamatory and are with a sole intention to black mail and pressurize the Opposite Party No.1 to extract as much money as possible from the Opposite Party No.1.The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed in the complaint and the complaint as prayed for is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
As per the version filed by the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law on or facts. It is stated that in the complaint, the complainant has no case there has been any deficiency in service on the part of these Opposite Parties. The chassis and engine number are embossed on the vehicle by the manufacturer. These Opposite Parties have no role in that. It is submitted that these Opposite Parties relying on the documents furnished by the manufacturer of the vehicle prepares the documents like sale certificate, invoices etc. and gives the same to the customer at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Further based on the documents given by the manufacturer these Opposite Parties apply for and obtain temporary registration and/ or registration for the vehicle as instructed by the customer.
It is submitted that a Renault- DUSTER-110-PS-RXL vehicle manufactured by the first Opposite Party was sold and delivered to the complainant. In the invoice as well as Initial Certificate of compliance with Pollution Standards, Safety Standards of components and Road willingness issued by the manufacturer of the vehicle the chassis No. was shown as MEEHSRA36C5-000184. These Opposite Parties relying on these documents had prepared the sale certificate and the Tax Invoice which were issued to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle to him. And again based on these documents, these Opposite Parties as per the complainant’s instruction applied to and obtained from the Registering authority at Mangalore temporary registration for the vehicle. Pursuant to this the complainant had driven the vehicle from Mangalore to Kasaragod and presented the vehicle before the Registering Authority at Kasaragod for permanent registration of the vehicle. The mistake in chassis number printed on the vehicle and in the documents issued by the manufacturer was noticed only then. The facts as stated here in above will disclose that these Opposite Parties are neither responsible nor liable for the wrong entry of chassis of the complainant’s vehicle.
It is submitted that the manufacturer of the vehicle the first Opposite Party had expressed readiness and willingness to amicably settle the issue. Accordingly negotiations were held and a settlement was arrived. However at the time signing of the agreement incorporating the terms of the settlement the complainant had refused to sign the agreement. It is further submitted that as per the directions of the JFMC Court, Mangalore where the complainant had filed P.C. No. 65 of 2013, these Opposite Parties had been directed to produce the vehicle of the complainant before the police station. It is only then that these Opposite Parties came to know of the said criminal complaint filed by the complainant with ulterior motives. As stated earlier, as per the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the proceedings in P.C. No. 65 of 2013 have been ordered to be kept in abeyance. These opposite Parties further state that the allegations are made malafide and with ulterior motives and as a ruse to cover up the complainant’s refusal to sign the settlement.
There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of these Opposite Parties as alleged. The complainant has raised the said allegation without any bonafied and with ulterior motives. For the self same reason these Opposite Parties are not liable to compensate the complainant nor is he entitled either in law or on facts to any amount towards compensation. The complainant is not entitled either in law or on facts to the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Further the relief sought for are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum in a petition under Section 11 of the Act and the same are vexatious.
As per the application filed by the complainant an expert commissioner is appointed for inspection of the car to identify defects, if any, and accordingly the commissioner Sri. Sunesh Puthiyaveettil , Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected and filed his report dated 05.02.2014. As per the expert report it is stated that the vehicle is Renault Duster-110PS RXL model diesel car with seating capacity 5 in all metallic red in color and is covered 16767 KM as per Odometer reading. The chassis number is punched on the front right side shock absorber turret which is noted as MEE HSRC36 C5 000184 and is found as genuine. Also vehicle identification tag, which is in the form of a polythene sticker, is present on RH side ‘B’ pillar and the chassis number in it is noted as MEE HSRA36 C5 000184.These numbers are not tallying. For the purpose of registration, the vehicle shall bear the identification number embossed or etched or punched on it and the location of the same shall be certified by the prototype approval agency. As per the approval certificate No.AAHN 0042, DATED: 21/03/2012, issued by the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, for the base model and its variants of this type of vehicle, the vehicle identification number is HSRA36.The Engine number is punched on the front side of the engine block and is noted as: K9K J886 D000392, which is found as genuine. There is nowhere else the engine number is exhibited in the vehicle other than this place.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents Exbt A1 to A18(a) and Exbt.C1 are marked. The PW1 has been cross examined for Opposite Party No.1 to 3. The Opposite Parties have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
In this case three issues are raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of Opposite
Parties?
2. Whether the complainant has suffered any damage due to such deficiency of service
or negligence?
3. If so, what is the relief and cost?
For convenience all these issues can be considered together. The clear case of the complainant is that he has purchased a brand new Renault- Duster-110 PSRXL car from the Opposite Party No.3 as per invoice No. VSLA12500447 dt: 13-12-2013 for Rs. 10, 68,699/- and after insurance policy processing charge, road tax all insured in total Rs. 12, 50,000/-, but the above car could not be registered at concerned RTO Office due to certain defects in the chassis number of the vehicle shown in the vehicular documents supplied by Opposite Parties and the chassis number embossed in the car. Noting the difference in the chassis number during inspection the RTO Kasaragod rejected the registration of the car. Due to the non registration of the vehicle the complainant suffered several hardships apart from the monetary loss.
Further case of the complainant is that the defects of the said car particulars are immediately informed to the Opposite Party No.3, but instead of rectifying the defects the staffs and manager of the Opposite Party No.3 made mockery of him by saying “ it is fate, run the vehicle as such”. This is an irresponsible attitude and moreover it is the prime responsibility of the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to rectify the mistake of the car and get it set right to enable the purchaser to run for his purposes. The Opposite Parties were showing sheer negligence and service deficiency. The complainant could not use his newly purchased vehicle for his personal requisites and had to keep idle without any use after the period of temporary registration time since it was not permanently registered.
As per the version of the Opposite Party No.1 it is admitted that there was difference in chassis number ingrained in the car and the chassis number recorded in the sale invoice/ documents. Their version is that such difference is rarest of rare one and it is due to technical glitch in the computer software. Also the Opposite Party states that they have already apologized for the same. But it is interesting to not that in spite of repeated requests by approaching in person and through Lawyers registered notices the above rarest of rare defects was not rectified by Opposite Parties for nearly two years. The complainant states that he had individually done his effort by approaching several times the Opposite Party No.3 and when he felt that voice of grievance have no respect he sent lawyer’s notice dated 27-04-2013 to all the Opposite Parties which were duly received. There was neither any response from any of the Opposite Parties nor shown any courtesy to rectify the defects with any alternative reliefs to the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to lodge criminal complaint before JMFSC III court of Mangalore which was duly referred and registered as crime No. 122/2013 under section 420 IPC against Opposite Parties.
Therefore the Opposite Parties called the complainant for talk of compromise .But it was ended in vein. The complainant again sent lawyers notice dated 18-06-2013 but of no use. There after the complainant approached this Forum with his grievances.
It is stated that the hardships and sufferance the complainant had undergone due to the negligence and deficiency in service was unwanted. He could not the use the newly purchased car in any of his family functions, emergency hospitalization etc.
It is stated that Opposite Parties as reputed company the complainant expected good approach in after sale services. But in this case it turned adversely causing mental agony loss and humiliation etc. And the complainant has lost trust fate in the service of the Opposite Parties . The complainant had suspicious that the chassis of the car is some old or of a car met with accident which is assembled with engine. Hence initially the complainant had asked for the relief of return of invested money for the said car back along with the compensation .It is further stated that but later due to the delaying tactics of Opposite Parties the complainant filed IA 208/2014 for interim Order directing the Opposite Parties rectify the chassis number in spite of the objection for the Opposite Parties this Forum directed the Opposite Parties to rectify the chassis number and the Opposite Parties complied the Order with delay on 29-01-2015. But the Opposite Parties have not provided the rectification duly endorsed in Form 21 and 22. Then the complainant again filed application before this Forum to provide the Form 21 and 22 and only after the Order of this Forum the Opposite Parties provided the necessary letters to the complainant. Thus only after long legal battle the complainant’s car got registered on 16-03-2015 with a number KL14- Q 9321. The complainant paid road tax of Rs. 1, 06,870/- on 16-04-2013 which was adjusted at the time of registration of the said car.
In this situation this Forum holds that there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Parties negligently delivered to the complainant a car with a chassis number different from the documents and there by caused to rejecting of registration by the RTO. In spite of repeated demands the Opposite Parties did not care to rectify the defects for nearly two years. The Opposite Parties came forward to rectify the defects in the chassis number only after the issue of the Order from this Forum. The complainant could not use the newly purchased car for 716 days. The Opposite Parties admitted that there is defect in the manufactured chassis and that alone caused the non registration of the car. If the Opposite Party’s approach was bonafide they could have take necessary steps to rectify the defects at the earliest possible time. On the other hand they were heedless towards the requests and demands of the complainant for a long period. The Opposite Party corrected the chassis number only after show cause notice and warrant issued to them for execution of I.A. Order. The counsel of complainant submits that is not done perfectly by the Opposite Party. In fact the chassis number is imprinted in lacer marking. That is the latest technology adopted to protect car number from alteration by thieves. Here the alteration is made by the Opposite Parties by punch method. This is clearly visible and gives room for suspicion. Though the RTO is not satisfied with the change the registration is given only as per the Court Order. All these would show that there is gross negligence and deficiency of a service on the part of the Opposite Parties due to which the complainant suffered much hardships and mental agony apart from monetary loss. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate for that.
Here the car is now got registered and the complainant is using the same for his purposes. So refund of value of the car is not required. The car is registered as KL14. Q. 9321. But previously at the time of purchase of car he had applied for a fancy number for which he had remitted Rs. 5,000/- as application fee. It was allowed and the No. KL14. N 3131 were granted to him. He lost that number due to the non registration due to the difference in chassis number. He lost the amount also. Also the Road Tax of Rs. 1, 06,870/- was paid by the complainant on 16-04-2013 later adjusted at the time of registering on 16-03-2015. But the amount of Rs. 32,624/- remitted by the complainant towards insurance premium of the car for the period from 01-02-2013 to 31-01-2014 is already lost. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.10, 92,000/- from the Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Limited. The complainant remitted Rs. 2, 52,000/- initially to Finance and loan amount was Rs. 8, 40,000/-. Thereafter Rs. 10, 68,700/- was remitted to the Opposite Parties as the price of the car. The complainant altogether remitted a total of Rs.6, 17,000/- altogether to the finance company without the use of car.
The complainant could not use the newly purchased car for 716 days. He is entitled for the compensation for mental agony hardships, physical strain humiliation by the delay in getting registration to the car suffered by him. His estimation is that an amount of Rs. 1650/- per day to be ordered. Thus for 716 days Rs. 11, 81,400/-. Here it is pertinent to not that as per the version of Opposite Party No.1 it is stated that the Opposite Party No.1 has agreed to pay 12% interest on the total consideration from date of sale till rectifying the mistake. This Forum holds that Rs. 5,00,000/- will be a reasonable compensation in this case.
Therefore the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) being the cost of fancy number and Rs 32,624/-(Rupees thirty two thousand six hundred and twenty four only) being the insurance premium amount remitted by the complainant with interest at 12% from 24-07-2013 till the date of payment. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the amount of Rs. 1, 06,870/- for the period from 16-04-2013 to 16-03-2015. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs 5, 00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) towards the compensation for mental agony and hardships and Rs.5, 000- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of proceedings. Time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1-Sale Certificate (Form 21.)
A2-Certificate of compliance with Pollution Standards (Form 22.)
A3-Tax Invoice dtd: 13-02-2013
A4-Certificate cum policy schedule of car dtd: 26-03-2013
A5-Proceedings of the Registering Authority, Kasaragod dtd: 22-04-2013.
A6-Copy of Lawyer Notice dtd: 27-04-2013.
A7 toA9 - Postal receipts.
A10- A12- Postal acknowledgement Cards.
A13-Letter of O.P.3 dtd: 29-01-2015.
A14-Copy of statement of accounts of Mahindra & Mahindra Finance.
A15-Receipt of Road Tax paid to the car.
A16-R.C. of the car.
A17-FIR of Kavoor Police Station.
A18 & A18(a)- Photographs of Chassis of Car KL.14.N3130.
C1- Report of the Expert Commissioner.
PW1- C.A. Abdul Rasheed.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
