DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 7^th day of October 2023 

                             Filed on: 03/07/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member                                                                   

C C. No. 434/2015

COMPLAINANT

          Maneesh Mathew, S/o.Mathew, Residing at Chiraickal House, Attappalam Kumily P.O., Chellimada, Idukki District-685 509

(By Adv.C.V.Manuvilsan, M/s.Jayasankar Manu & Manu, Sree Padmam, Ponoth Road, Kaloor, Cochin-682 017)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. M/s.Renault India Pvt.Ltd., 4^th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Rep. by CEO & M.D Sumit Sawhney
2. M/s.T.V. Sunaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd., Renault, Kalamassery, Kochi-682 033,  (Rep. by Service Manager, Hareesh Kumar N)

(Rep. by Adv.V.Krishnamenon, Menon & Menon H.R.S. Complex, 1^st Floor, S.R.M.Road, Kochi-682 018)

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a Renault Duster RXZdCl (HSRA 36) (bearing Reg.No.KL 37C 450) with chasis No.MEEHSRA36D3018802 and of engine No.K9KJ886D020731 from the showroom of 2^nd opposite party at Kalamassery, Kochi, (which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party) for an amount of Rs.13,95,000/- (on the road price).  On 06.06.2023 the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant when it was delivered.  The complainant had availed a vehicle loan from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd (Finance) for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the purchase of this vehicle and the hypothecation is still continuing.  The vehicle is covered under ‘Renault New Vehicle Warranty’ for 24 months or 50000 kms whichever occurs earlier from the date of delivery of the vehicle.  In addition to that opposite party provided an extended warranty for a period of another 2 years or additional 30000 kms whichever occurs earlier (ie., warranty in total for 48 months or 80000 kms, whichever occurs earlier from the date of delivery of the vehicle)

On 17/04/2015 at about 1.00 am the vehicle which was parked in the car porch of the complainant’s house had caught fire.  The complainant along with his family tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on the car.  After extinguishing the fire it was found that the engine and other mechanical components of the vehicle were totally burnt.  The various parts of the vehicle including the bonnet, headlights, bumper and mudguard were also found totally burned and damaged.  On 17/04/2015 the complainant had given a complaint to the Kumily Police Station.  The Sub Inspector of the Kumili Police Station came to the complainant’s residence and enquired regarding the fire occurrence and also inspected the vehicle.  The Mahazer report was prepared by the Sub Inspector on the said incident.  On 17/04/2015 the complainant had called the customer care of the 1^st opposite party at 2.30 am and reported about the conflagration.  On 18/04/2015, a service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party had come to the complainant’s residence and duly verified the damaged condition of the vehicle.  After that the vehicle was taken to the garage of the 2^nd opposite party by a recovery van.  The complainant had submitted all the relevant documents to the 2^nd opposite party, for processing the claim related for fire damages.  The complainant had contacted the 2^nd opposite party over telephone and through e-mail.  But the 2^nd opposite party not responded.  After a week when the complainant had been to the showroom of the 2^nd opposite party it was seen that the vehicle is parked on the garage, in the same damaged condition. 

The complainant was totally unsatisfied with the above act of the 2^nd opposite party and had insisted that the vehicle should be replaced with a new vehicle.  The service manager of the 2^nd opposite party had tried to convince the complainant and assured that they will take appropriate steps to complete the repair of the vehicle, as early as possible.

          Later the complainant had received a letter from the 2^nd opposite party dated 06/05/.2015 stating that ‘since the damages are not covered under warranty and not related to manufacturing defect, the work requires to be performed under insurance/payment basis’.  The complainant was astonished by the above communications, as he strongly believes that the fire occurrence was due to manufacturing defect and the vehicle is covered under warranty.  Infact, the concerned persons from the 2^nd opposite party had also enclosed that the same had occurred due to malfunctioning of the wiring kit.   The vehicle is still parked in the garage, in same damaged condition.  The complainant states that if it is continued to be in the same deteriorated condition without any repair which would only help further deterioration of the vehicle.  The complainant states that the opposite parties have committed serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite parties to pay either an amount of Rs.13,95,000/- to the complainant towards the value of the vehicle together with interest or to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with another one or to direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The complainant had filed this complaint along with a petition to appoint an Expert Commission to examine the complainant’s vehicle Renault Duster KL 37 C450.  I.A allowed and Sri.Vinodkumar N., Motor Vehicle Inspector RTO, Kakkanad is appointed as the Expert Commissioner to inspect the complainant’s vehicle and to inspect the matters specified in the I.A.

2. Notice

When the case was taken on file notice was issued to the opposite parties from this commission on 22/07/2015 along with I.A.385/2015 and the case was posted for the R/N to 06/11/2015.

On 06/11/2015 the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared and the case was posted for the version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to 21/01/2016.

On 21/01/2016, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sought time for version.  Time was not granted in view of the verdict of Hon’ble State Commission.

3. Evidence.

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainants which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A11.  On 01.03.2016 the expert commissioner has filed the report. Evidence was closed on 28/02/2018 and the case posted for Hg to 17/04/2018 and then adjourned to 05/09/2018.  On 05/09/2018 the complainant filed IA 424/2018 to reopen the evidence of the complainant and to mark two documents Exbt.A12 and Exbt.A13 and for seeking permission to cross examine the Expert Commissioner.  On 04/03/2021 IA 424/2016 was allowed and summons was issued to the Expert Commissioner.  Later the complainant filed IA 01/2022 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for taking the oral evidence of the witness, Expert Commissioner.  I.A 01/2022 allowed.  Adv.Jaison Antony was appointed as Advocate Commissioner for taking the oral evidence of the Expert Commissioner in this case.  The Expert Commissioner’s Report is marked as ‘C1’ subject to the objection of the complainant.  On 13.04.2016, the complainant had filed an I.A. 228/16 to set aside the Expert Commission Report.  It is observed that it is a matter of appreciation of the evidence adduced in this case.  Hence I.A.228/2016 is decided to consider during final stage. 

Heard. 

4. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows:

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

2. If so, reliefs and costs?

5. Issue No.1

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a vehicle from the show room of the 2^nd opposite party on 06.06.2013 for an amount of Rs.1395000/- which is manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.He had availed a vehicle loan from Kotak Mahindra Ltd. (Finance) for an amount of Rs.800000/- for the purchase of the vehicle.The vehicle was covered under Renault New Vehicle Warranty’ for 24 months or 50000 kms whichever occurs from the date of delivery of the vehicle.The complainant had also taken an extended warranty from the 1^st opposite party for a period of another 2 years or additional 30000 kms whichever occurs earlier from the date of delivery of the vehicle.On 17.04.2015 at around 1.00 am the complainant’s vehicle had caught fire.The engine and other mechanical components of the vehicle were totally burnt.The complainant strongly believes that the fire occurrence was due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.

Exbt.A1 is an invoice form for Rs.12,31,000/- .Exbt.A2 is the extended warranty certificate.As per Exbt/.A2 the vehicle has an additional warranty for another 2 years or 80000 kms whichever occurs earlier, from the date of delivery of the vehicle.Exbt.A3 is the details of the vehicle loan availed by the complainant.Exbt.A4 is the driving license of the complainant.Exbt.A6 is the complaint filed before the Kumali Police by the complainant.Exbt.A7 is the GD Entry Extract issued by Kumily Police Station on 17.04.2015 about the fire occurrence of the car. Exbt.A8 is the repair order of the vehicle given by Renault Ernakulam.Exbt.A9 is a letter issued to the complainant dated 21.04.2015 by the opposite party to produce the documents like RC book driving licencem insurance policy, FIR and fire brigade certificate.Exbt.A10 is also a letter issued by TV Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd to the complainant stating that “there is no technical anomaly noticed in any of the engine compartment, components. Since the damages are not covered under warranty and not related to any manufacturing defect, the work requires to be performed under insurance/payment basis”.Exbt.A11 is also a letter dated 10.06.2015 issued by T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd directing the complainant to furnish the necessary documents for taking up the claim with the insurance Company within 3 days Document No.12 and 13 are the additional documents filed by the complainant which are the repair order issued by the opposite party.

From the available evidence filed in this case the following points are noted.

1. The engine, engine component, front portion of the passenger compartment, wind shield gas, bonnet, head light battery, radiator, horns front tyres, all wiring cables, fuel lines and fuse board were found totally burned in the fire occurrence of the vehicle on 17.04.2015 as the report of the Expert Commissioner.
2. As per the Commission Report the extra horns fitted on the vehicle were directly connected to the battery terminals without fuse.  The extra horns were not fitted by the authorized dealer, but it had been fitted somewhere outside the dealership. Due to the overloading of the contacts in the connector they started becoming loose and this resulted in sparkling, the metal had been melted, any flammable material in contact with this would start burning unless they are made of fire retardant material and since the wires are connected to the connectors, they caught fire.

At the time when the Expert Commissioner was examined in box he had deposed that the combust or fire has occurred in the vehicle solemnly due to the fact that some additional fittings were made in the vehicle, violating the restrictions and conditions imposed by the company in the manual of operation of the vehicle.  Moreover and above that in the report of the Expert it is specifically stated that the wires were connected to the connecters and they caused to catch fire.  The Commission relied on the report of facts furnished by the Expert Commissioner and all the allegations made by the complainant are also examined on the light of all evidence filed by the complainant.  From the above available documents and evidences in this case, we are of the opinion that the allegations made by the complainant against the opposite party has not been proved with evidences.

The complainant believes that the fire occurrence was due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The vehicle was covered under warranty.  The complainant has not produced any documents to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the opposite party.  To prove the manufacturing defect, an expert opinion is necessary.  In this case the Expert Commissioner filed the report that the fire occurrence was due to the extra horns fitted in the vehicle by the complainant somewhere outside the dealership

There is no indication in the Expert Commission Report that the vehicle has a manufacturing defect.  Eventhough the vehicle was covered under warranty on the date of accident, as per Exbt.A2, the vehicle which has been modified against Renault specifications are excluded from warranty coverage.  As per Exbt.A10, the opposite party has advised the complainant to claim the insurance for repairing his vehicle.  The complainant was of the impression that the occurrence of the incident was within the warranty period of the vehicle.  Hence he has not preferred the insurance claim. 

During cross examination PW1 also admits this fact that he has not claimed the vehicle insurance.  Due to the extra fittings made by the complainant in the vehicle, which is against the guidelines stipulated by the Company in the manual of operations, the complainant is not eligible to get the privilege.  Hence issue No. (i) is decided against the complainant.  In the result the compliant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open commission on this 7^th day of October 2023

Sd/-

                                                                   Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                   V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Depositions

PW1       :: Maneesh Mathew