BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint No.281/2019.
Date of instt.: 24.05.2019.
Date of Decision: 18.02.2020.
Mr. Dhiraj Pal Singh, aged 37 years son of Sh. Hira Singh, residing at House No. 13/712-713, Hisar Road, Gobind Nagar, District Sirsa, Haryana- 125055.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd., 5th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 52, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.
2. RP Jhunthra Motors (P) Ltd., Near Minaxi Petrol Pump, N.H. 9, Hisar Road, Sirsa- 125055 (Haryana).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………MEMBER.
Present: Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Shri Dharminder Chauhan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 5.6.2018 complainant purchased a new Nissan Terrano XLD (o) SV of white colour from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.12,22,260/- through delivery challan no.24 and said car is manufactured by op no.2. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,22,260/- and also secured a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Nissan Renault Finance Services India Pvt. Ltd. with interest @3.99% per annum and loan is being repaid through installments. The said vehicle was got registered vide registration No. HR 24Z1295 and was also insured from Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. That complainant was assured by ops that this vehicle is of very good quality and especially that vehicle is equipped with an efficacious and unrivalled air conditioner as compared to other car in the market. It is further averred that just ten days after taking the delivery of the car, it started generating numerous trouble and complainant was forced to question the efficacy as promised by op no.2. The complainant reported this issue to op no.2 to which a response that “the new car takes a time period of two weeks to work at its full capacity and that such a problem is not a major issue as it arises at times due to high temperature to which the new car takes time to adjust” was given. Thereafter, the complainant waited and suffered for next couple of days with high hopes to witness the efficacious results as promised but to no use. The complainant was made to run after op no.2 for getting the car worthy of using and make it trouble fee. As such rattling from the date of purchase, the complainant has not enjoyed comfortable driver and has not been able to enjoy a smooth and trouble free ride of the new vehicle. That complainant could not get any satisfactory outcome even after waiting for a number of days and finally on 21.6.2018 he went to op no.2 for repairs and rectifications of the defects in the air conditioner. The complainant was assured by op no.2 that trouble with respect to the air conditioner has been fixed and the defected parts have been replaced with new, original and genuine parts and invoice was prepared and was handed over to complainant by op no.2. It is further averred that just three days after repairs, complainant again started facing trouble with the air conditioner and when the complainant approached and informed the op no.2 about the same, he was then informed by an onsite service engineer that car in question was having some manufacturing defects and that they will again change the defective parts with new one without charging any cost. The complainant left with no other alternative agreed to this proposal. That however, when the complainant came to op no.2 in lieu of above proposition, op no.2 retracted from their previous stand on the ground that company had refused to replace the defective parts again with new one and that they will make the repairs for which the complainant had to leave the car with op no.2 for a period of approximately 15 days to get the car fixed and gave an estimate of about Rs.20,000/- for making such repairs for depositing the same in advance. That complainant flatly refused to make such payment as the car in question is new and parts in question are covered under warranty. That ops knowingly and intentionally sold a defective vehicle to the complainant and have caused unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards the complainant. It is further averred that complainant kept on requesting the op no.2 to settle the issue amicably but despite all his efforts, the op no.2 opted to misbehave and has been adamant about making an advance payment of Rs.20,000/- to start the repairs and get the problems fixed in the said vehicle and as such ops have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that relationship between op no.1 and op no.2 is not that of Principal Agent rather it is on principal to principal basis and op no.1 cannot be held liable for the acts and omissions done by op no.2. Moreover, op no.1 has not done any illegality or any omission. That the performance of the air conditioning system of a car depends upon various extraneous factors also and also the efficaciousness reduces temporarily due to improper running of the car of parking the car in long hours of direct sunlight. That AC Thermister and expansion valve, blower body of AC and AC control panel which could have caused problem were replaced free of cost and now the AC of the car is properly functional and complainant has given an undertaking dated 11.7.2019 that the air conditioning problem has been redressed to his complete satisfaction. It is further submitted that as per knowledge of op no.1, the complainant had issues with the air conditioner of the car in the peak summer time and op no.2 with the consent of op no.1 replaced the alleged defective parts to the satisfaction of complainant free of cost. The air conditioner repaired by op no.2 was functioning properly and in extreme temperatures of North Indian summers the car air conditioner takes some time to cool the interiors of the car as also the cars become very hot due to heat trapped in the car cabin due to green house effect. There is no manufacturing defect in the car and complainant has not been taking care of the car as a reasonable man would have done. The car in question also met with an accident caused by complainant and was satisfactory repaired by op no.2. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. Op no.2 filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has purchased the car in question with his satisfaction after inspection from all corners. The air conditioner in the car was installed by company free of defects and it was running smoothly in the car at the time of purchase. There was no defect in the air conditioner as alleged. The complainant visited the showroom of answering op with complaint of some defects in air conditioner of the car, which was got repaired by answering op free of costs to the satisfaction of complainant and he was satisfied with the services of answering op. It is further submitted that if there is any defect in the air conditioner of the car, then the answering op is ready to remove all the defects of the air conditioner in all respects even to the satisfaction of complainant but he never made any complaint to the answering op at any point of time. All other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The parties then led their respective evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, op no.1 has furnished affidavit of Sh. Shoban Babu as Ex.RW1/A and copy of satisfaction note Ex.R1. Op no.2 furnished affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj authorized signatory as Ex.RW2/A and copies of documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R13 and resolution Ex.R14.
7. It is proved on record that on 5.6.2018 complainant had purchased car in question for a sum of Rs.12,22,260/- from op no.2 which was manufactured by op no.1. As per allegations of complainant, there was fault in the air conditioner of the car for which he approached op no.2 time and again and they tried to make it defect free and even under pressure they got satisfactory notes signed from the complainant. But however, the complainant has not placed on record any opinion of the expert from which it could be presumed that there is manufacturing defect in the car or in the air conditioner of the car. So, under these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainant is entitled for replacement of the car.
8. It is settled principle of law that it is legal obligation of the dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle to provide after sale services to the customers like complainant. Since there was problem in the air conditioner of the car of complainant, it was legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs and make same defect free without any costs.
9. In view of above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the air conditioner of the car in question of complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without any costs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the vehicle from complainant. In case it is found that air conditioner of the car is not repairable, then the ops will be liable to replace the air conditioner with new one of same make and model without any costs. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:18.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
