DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/354 of 22.12.2014

                                      Decided on:         9.7.2015

Sh.Vijay Kumar son of Mohinder Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Shri Sai Maa Associates r/o H.No.56 Naagar Enclave New Officer Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      M/s Renault, India Private Limited, through its CEO , ASV Ramana Towers, 4^th Floor # 37-38, Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai, 600017, Tamil Nadu.

2.      M/s Renault Patiala, show room and workshop c/o Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala Sales Manager,

3.      Sales Manager, M/s Renault Patiala, Unit of Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For the complainant:       Sh.H.P.S.Verma , Advocate

For Ops:                            Sh.S.P.Singh Sidhu,Advocate              

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant had purchased one vehicle make Duster RXL-85 PS bearing temporary registration No.PB-03/AE(T)-3195, vide invoice No.99 dated 28.8.2014 from Ops no.2&3, the same having been manufactured by Op no.1.
2. Some days after the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant noticed the dripping of the water on the floor of the cabin of the vehicle. Initially it was realized by the complainant that it may be the leakage of the pipe of air conditioner inside the body and accordingly he had reported the matter to Ops no.2&3 immediately. The complainant also found  defect in both front door glasses. The complainant took the vehicle to the service center of Ops no.2&3.A job card was prepared in  which all the complaints were duly recorded. The complainant was asked by Ops n.2&3 to leave his vehicle for thorough checkup and accordingly the complainant had left the vehicle with them. The entire dashboard and the seats were removed for thorough checkup but the job was not carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant. Then the matter was brought to the notice of Sh.Jasbir Singh Gill, General Manager of the service center, Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Works Manager and Sh.Sunil Sharma, working as Warranty officer as also Sh.Vikram , Customer advisor.
3. It is further averred that during the checkup of the complaint, the carpet fixed on the floor of the vehicle was found to have been damaged on account of leakage of the water and carpet has lost its colour and the colour of the floor has merged into the colour of the carpet. Blue stains were found on the floor. The complainant videographed the process of checking the car in the workshop. It was admitted by the official of the service station that the leakage was from the body of the vehicle.
4. A defective vehicle carrying a major manufacturing defect was sold to the complainant fraudulently and for that reason some other temporary registration number was assigned to it i.e. PB 03 AE(T) 3195 although in the invoice the number mentioned was PB 04 AE(T) 3183. The complainant had received letter dated 21.10.2014 from Op no.1 in which the number of the vehicle was mentioned as PB 03 AE 3145.
5. Because of the aforesaid major defect in the vehicle, the complainant does not want to keep the same with him and he wants either the price of the vehicle to be refunded or the replacement of the vehicle with new one. The vehicle was lying parked in the service station of Ops no.2&3.The complainant got the ops served with a legal notice dated 5.11.2014 for the said purpose but the ops failed to respond. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to refund the price of the vehicle or to replace the vehicle with new one; to make the payment of Rs.5lacs by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant on account of unfair trade practice on the part of the ops.
6. On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; that the complainant does not fall under the definition of the ‘consumer’ as provided under the Act because the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes by M/s Shri Sai Maa Associates and that the complainant has based his complaint on the ground of manufacturing defect but no opinion of any expert has been placed on file to show the manufacturing defect. As regards the facts of the complaint , it is not denied by the Ops that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from Ops no.2&3. At the time of selling the vehicle, the same bore temporary registration No.PB 03 AE 3195 but it was due to a typographical error in mentioning the correct number as PB 03 AE 3195. On coming to know about the said error, a corrected invoice bearing temporary registration No.PB 03 AE 3183 was issued. However, the complainant is trying to twist the matter in order to take undue advantage of the clerical mistake on the part of the Ops.
7. It is further averred by the ops that the complainant had  visited the Ops alongwith vehicle in respect of minor problem in the rear door lock and AC water in AC cabine. Accordingly on 9.10.2014, the first free service was conducted. It was disclosed to the complainant that the problem will be cured as it was a general problem but when the repair work was about to start, the complainant stopped the ops for doing the same and got the matter put off. Lateron when the complainant was contacted by the ops for giving his approval in repairing the vehicle he put off the matter. He was even written the letters on 20.10.2014, 28.10.2014 , 3.11.2014 and 4.12.2014 but he failed to turn up to accord his approval in repairing the vehicle . As such the lapse occurred on the part of the complainant. The ops are ready to change the carpet of the car although the same has not been damaged and floor can be repainted. The Ops are ready to rectify the problems in the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. The problems/complaints made by the complainant have already been removed and the vehicle is found in OK condition and the complainant can  take the same back at any time. The vehicle of the complainant is lying parked in the workshop of the Ops duly repaired. Due to the non taking away of the vehicle by the complainant, the Ops are suffering a lot as there is shortage of space for parking in the workshop. There is no major defect in the vehicle. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and the evidence of the complainant was closed by the order of the Forum.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.G.S.Gill, Manager/authorized representative of ops no.2&3 alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed their evidence.
10. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
11. At the outset, we take up the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle is being used by M/s Sai Maa Associates for commercial purposes. To say the least, there is no evidence to have been lead by the Ops that the vehicle is being used by the complainant for commercial purposes and is not being used  by its Prop. namely Sh.Vijay Kumar for his personal use. That being so, the said objection raised by the Ops falls to the ground.
12. Ex.C10  is the repair order dated 9.10.2014 issued by Op no.2, in favour of Shri Sai Maa Associates, in respect of vehicle bearing registration PB 03 AE 3195 describing the problems as disclosed by the customer: (i) LHS rear door lock Chk ,(ii) AC water in AC cabine CHK,(iii)  Floor leakage chk, (iv) front both door glasses scratches chk(v) water enter in cabin A/c water (vi) floor paint chk. The repair order pertains to first free service. The complainant has also produced, Ex.C11, also the copy of repair order dated 9.10.2014 pertaining to first free service in which the customer problems have been described: (1) LHS rear door lock check (2) AC water in AC cabine check.
13. On the other hand, it is the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant had visited the ops alongwith his vehicle regarding the minor problem in the rear door lock and AC water in AC cabine. Accordingly on 9.10.2014 first free service of the vehicle was done. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant had left the vehicle with the ops although he was disclosed that the problem would be rectified being the general problem but when the repair work was about to start, the complainant stopped the Ops from doing the repair work and put off the matter. Lateron when the complainant was contacted for giving his approval  in repairing the vehicle, he had put off the matter. The Ops have produced in evidence, letters Exs.OP1 dated 28.10.2012, OP2 dated 3.11.2014, OP3 dated 20.11.2014 and OP4 date4d 4.12.2014, all to have been sent through registered post to Shri Sai Maa Associates i.e. the complainant, whereby the complainant was requested to visit the workshop in connection with the necessary repair but by the date 28.10.2014 when letter Ex.OP1 was written, it was stated that the ops had not got any communication from the complainant. Vide letter Ex.OP2 dated 3.11.2014 , it was stated that the complainant had refused to get the repair work done and accordingly they had stopped the work in that regard. They requested the complainant to give the approval for completion of the repair work but no approval was received by them. Vide letter Ex.OP3 dated 22.11.2014, again the Ops sought the approval from the complainant to do the repair work.The complainant was informed that the work will take 3-4 days to complete the same and request was made to get his approval urgently. Similarly request was made vide letter,Ex.OP4 dated 4.12.2014. The complainant has not made a reference of the aforesaid letters in his complaint. Rather the complainant himself has produced in evidence Ex.C9, the copy of the letter dated 21.10.2014 , received by the complainant from the Ops whereby the complainant was informed that the complainant had refused to get the work done and the complainant was requested to visit the workshop for getting the necessary repair done. Instead of complying with the requests of the ops to accord his approval, the complainant has tried to find fault in the letter by way of stating that in the letter the registration number of the vehicle was mentioned as PB 03 AE 3145 although in the invoice the same was mentioned as PB 03 AE(T) 3183. It is the plea taken up by the Ops that by way of a typographical error the temporary registration number was mentioned as PB 03 AE 3183 in the invoice  and on coming to know about the same , new invoice with correct temporary number mentioned as PB 03 AE 3195 was issued to the complainant. The complainant has not made any comments on the same either in his complaint or in his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA.There is no evidence to have been lead by the complainant that the problem of dripping the water in the AC cabine is a manufacturing defect. Simply because the complainant has described the same to be a manufacturing defect would not mean that whatever the complainant has disclosed is gospel truth. To the contrary , it is the plea taken up by the Ops that it is a minor general problem and can be set at right but the same could not be done because of the lack of approval on the part of the complainant. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that they have already removed the defects in the vehicle and the same is in an OK condition and the complainant can take the same back at any time he desires.
14. The learned counsel for the Ops placed reliance upon the citation Shivprasad Paper Industries Vs. Senior Machinery Company 2006(1)CLT 527 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the observations: “It is by now settled law that an equipment or machinery cannot be ordered to be replaced if can be repaired .Since defects have been noted in the report of the Engineer,Mr.Sadananda R.Holennavar,B.E.&(Mech.) Engineer in view of the settled position of law, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission granting all the possible reliefs including waiving off of Rs.2,64,000/- admittedly, payable by the appellant to the respondent. The reliefs granted by the State Commission in the order are comprehensive and meet the ends of equity and justice. Without proving any manufacturing defects, the appellant/complainant cannot claim refund of the money………..”
15. In our case, the complainant cannot say the defects in the vehicle regarding the dripping of the water in the AC cabine to be a manufacturing defect, unless the same is rectified by the Ops and the complainant is not satisfied about the same. The complainant appears to be adamant in getting the vehicle replaced without there being any basis for the same.
16. As regards the carpet of the complainant having got damaged and the same has affected the floor of the car, in this regard, it is the plea taken up by the Ops that they are ready to replace the carpet although the same has not been damaged and the floor can be repainted. Consequently, we accept the complaint with a direction to the Ops to handover the vehicle in case the same is already lying repaired after obtaining the note of satisfaction on the job order already prepared and the Ops shall also replace the carpet of the car and paint the colour of the floor of the car within seven days on receipt of the certified copy of the order. There does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in having not attended to the problems/defects as pointed out by the complainant vide repair orders Exs.C10 and C11 and therefore, no order as to costs.

Pronounced

Dated:9.7.2015

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President