BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 103/2013 filed on 11/03/2013
Dated: 16..06..2014
Complainant:
V. Usha, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Vattiyoorkavu Branch, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.
(By Adv. K. Sivankutty Nair)
Opposite party:
M/s. Renault Trivandrum, TVS & Sons Ltd., Neeramankara, Kaimanam-P.O., Thiruvnanthapuram – 695 040.
(By Adv. S. Laila)
This C.C having been heard on 31..05..2014, the Forum on 16..06..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
The complainant had purchased a new Pulse Diesel RxL (O) vehicle from the opposite party’s outlet, M/s. Renault, Trivandrum, TVS & Sons Ltd., Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram as per invoice No. VLSAN 12000004 dated 21/07/2012. It is submitted that while taking delivery of the said vehicle on 25/07/2012, the complainant was provided with only one key for operating the Remote Control Security system of the vehicle, noting the deficiency of service, the complainant immediately brought it to the notice of the opposite party and staked her claim for a duplicate key identical to the original one. An endorsement was made on the delivery letter itself confirming her right to have the duplicate key as above free of cost. Accordingly the opposite party agreed to provide the same within a reasonable time as requested. However, the opposite party did not keep their promise. The complainant approached the opposite party repeatedly in person, over phone as well as through e-communications to various functionaries who are connected with the supply / servicing of the vehicle. In spite of such repeated requests, reminders and notices to the opposite party to provide the duplicate switch key with remote control, the opposite party failed in complying with the requirement. After long and protracted demands by the complainant, the opposite party supplied her with a duplicate key having remote control facility on 08/12/2012. However, against their promise to supply the same free of cost, they raised a bill for Rs. 5114.75 towards the cost of the key which was unwarranted, unreasonable and unjustifiable. The complainant had no other way than to pay the amount “Under Protest” for taking delivery of the vehicle after the above service work. The complainant was entitled to get the duplicate key with remote control with no additional costs at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle itself as being done by other per group companies. In spite of this, the complainant supplied the same after a long delay at the end of long and protracted communications and while executing the said work, as against the promise given at the time of taking delivery, they raised a bill for Rs. 5114.75 which amounts to defective service on the part of opposite party. In-built security system of the said vehicle is an integral part of the original equipment and the same can be operated only with the help of a remote control key system which can be provided by the manufacturer alone. This means that in case of loss of the only remote control key provided along with the vehicle, the security system will become non-usable posing a threat to the security of the vehicle itself which makes it mandatory on the part of the manufacturer / dealer to supply an identical duplicate key with remote control facility at the time of delivery of the vehicle itself with no additional cost for the opposite party. While taking delivery of the vehicle, the opposite party had promised the complainant to provide the required key free of cost and it was against the promise that the complainant took the original delivery. Further, never during the course of correspondence in the matter, the opposite party company had informed the complainant that the relative cost will have to be borne by purchaser. It was only at the time of delivery of the duplicate key that the payment as above was insisted upon and the same stands paid under protest. Throughout the correspondence and during the verbal communications over phone and in person, the officials of the opposite party company had promised the complainant that the matter would be settled to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. The deliberate act on the part of the opposite party caused severe mental agony, inconvenience and monetary loss of Rs. 5114.75 to the complainant. The complainant was eligible for a duplicate switch key with remote control facility free of cost as part of the original equipment at the time of delivery of the vehicle. This being so, the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of Rs. 5114.75 wrongly charged to her by the opposite party with interest @ 9.25% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization. Hence this complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version contending that it is admitted that opposite party is the authorised dealer of Renault vehicle. It is true that on 25/07/2012 the complainant had purchased a New Pulse RXL (Diesel) vehicle from opposite party as per invoice dated 21/07/2012 and took delivery of the vehicle on 25/07/2012. At the time when the complainant first approached the opposite party with a proposal to purchase the vehicle the opposite party’s staff informed her about the features of the both the models of the vehicle pulse diesel cars and also had provided her with a brochure of the vehicle in which all the features are clearly stated. Only in the higher option ie, Pulse RxZ model the Keyless Entry and Smart Access Key are available. The complainant selected the lower model RXL (Diesel) in which the Keyless Entry and Smart Access Key are not available. The remote control device is used for keyless entry. Eventhough the complainant had selected a vehicle without keyless entry, as per the then prevailing provisions the opposite party had provided the complainant with one remote control device for the RXL Diesel vehicle. The other key is an ordinary key for the model. The complainant knows very well that she is entitled only for an ordinary key and one remote control device. Even then she had written the request in the delivery letter as well as various demands made with full knowledge that she is entitled for only one remote control devise and hence her request for one more remote control device is not as of right and not maintainable. The opposite party never agreed or promised to provide a duplicate key to her because there is no such provision in the deal. The opposite party is snot liable to provide a duplicate key with remote control to the complainant and the position is well known to the complainant. As the opposite party never made any promise the question of keeping the promise also does not arise. For all the request and notice of the complaint clear explanations were given by the opposite party and made her know about the correct position. The opposite party agreed to supply the duplicate key with remote control only on payment of cost. On agreeing to pay the cost the complainant brought her vehicle to the opposite party’s service centre at Thiruvananthapuram with a request to make a duplicate remote control key device and the opposite party’s service persons informed her the approximate estimate of the same and she was ready to pay the amount. The duplicate remote control device was made and given to her in time. The money received from her by the opposite party is only the charges for preparing the device and no extra money is received from her. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party. The opposite party or its representative never promised to give remote control key free of cost. The complainant brought her car to the opposite party’s service centre at Thiruvananthapuram with her request to make a duplicate remote control key device and the opposite party’s persons informed her about the approximate estimate of the same and she was ready to pay the amount. Accordingly the duplicate remote control device was made and given to her in time and she had paid the amount voluntarily and not under protest. It is true hat the opposite party’s representatives replied to the complainant that the matter could be settled with at most satisfaction and in that settlement the complainant requested the opposite party to make a duplicate key for her on payment basis which was done by the opposite party. The money received from the complainant is only the charges for preparing the device and no extra money is received from her and hence she is not entitled to get reimbursement of any amount from the opposite party.
Complainant filed affidavit along with 6 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. She was examined as PW1. Opposite party also filed affidavit along with 4 documents which was marked as Exts. D1 to D4. She was examined as DW1.
3. Issues raised:
(i) Whether the allegation against the opposite party is proved?
(ii) Reliefs and costs if any?
4. Issues (i) & (ii): Perused the documents and depositions of both sides heard. Complainant approached this Forum seeking refund of the amount she paid towards getting a duplicate key with remote control facility along with compensation and cost. Complainant purchased a new pulse diesel RxL (O) model car from the opposite party. At the time of purchase she was provided with only one key for operating the remote control security system. When she demanded the duplicate key for the same, she was asked to remit Rs. 5114.75/- towards the same. She paid the said amount under protest and now claims refund of the same through this petition.
5. Opposite party’s contention is that only in higher option ie., Pulse RxZ model, the keyless entry and Smart Access Key are available. Complainant herein brought pulse RxL diesel model, where in keyless entry and Smart Access Key facility is not available. Eventhough the complainant purchased a car without the facility of keyless entry, as per the then prevailing provisions opposite party provided the complainant one remote control device as a matter of good will. The other key is an ordinary key for the mode. They are denying the contention of the complainant that they promised to give her a duplicate of the remote control key already provided to her. This can be done only if the complainant is ready to be as the cost of the same. Here, the complainant paid the amount and she was given the duplicate. So there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
6. The only question we have to look into is whether the model purchased by the complainant had these facilities and if so, whether the opposite party failed to deliver the same. Here Ext.D2 plays a vital role. It is the brochure of Renault Pulse. In the last page of Ext. D2, features of different models of Renault Pulse is mentioned. Complainant herein purchased Renault Pulze RxL diesel model. On perusal of the same, the features of different variants are clearly brought out. In the entries under the subheading comfort and convenience, keyless entry option is mentioned. As per company’s brochure itself the variant Renault Pulze RxL diesel model is deprived of keyless entry and Smart Access Key – 5 doors. So it is crystal clear that the model purchased by the complainant lacks such an option. Then what have been done by the opposite party free of cost is a gesture of good will by presenting her with a remote control key can be considered only as a gift. Then to get a duplicate of the same, that too free of cost, is something seems to be very strange. Here no negligence can be attributed on the side of opposite party, since they already provided a remote control key the complainant free of cost. When she demanded a duplicate key for the same, we find irregularity on the part of the opposite party in demanding payment for the same. So the complaint lacks merits and is only to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order on cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of June, 2014.
sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
sd/- G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
sd/- R. SATHI : MEMBER
ad
C.C.No: 103/2013
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : Usha. V
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of new vehicle sales invoice No.VSLA 12000004 dated 21/07/2012
P2 : “ delivery note dated 25/07/2012
P3 : “ repair order No. RPAB 12000804 dated 04/12/2012
P4 : “ on demand receipt dated 08/12/2012
P5 : “ letter dated 17/12/2012 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party
P6 : “ Advocate notice dated 10/01/2013
III. Opposite party’s witness:
DW1 : Pramod. G
IV. Opposite party’s documents:
D1 : Delivery note dated 25/07/2012
D2 : Brochure of the Renault Pulse Vehicle
D3 : Reply notice dated 06/03/2013
D4 : Acknowledgement card
sd/- PRESIDENT
Ad.
