DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 30 of 29.1.2016
Decided on: 22.3.2017
M/s Nancy Package Pvt. Ltd. Waraichan Road, Samana , District Patiala, through its Director Sh.Sham Bihari Jindal.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Padam Car Pvt. Ltd. Hira Bagh, Rajpura Road, Patiala (authorized Dealer of Renault Vehicles) through its Manager.
2. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. Plot 1, Siplot Industrial Estate, Mattur (Post) Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram (TN) through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Sunil Kumar Garg, Advocate, counsel
for the complainant.
Sh.K.S.Sidhu,Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
M/s Nancy Package Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sh.Sham Bihari Jindal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund the amount of Rs.7069/- charged from him on account of pump assy.water
- To pay Rs.90,000/-as damages/compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, it purchased car make Duster Diesel HPRXL, from Op No.1. The same was got registered with DTO, Patiala vide registration No.PB-11-W-0009. Warranty for 24 months or 50,000 KMs , which ever is earlier was given to it, in respect of the said vehicle.He got extended warranty of two years or additional 30000 KMs. On 25.1.2016, it brought the above said car at the premises of OP no.1 for its service. An amount of Rs.12,567/- was charged from it, which includes the price of Pump Assy water amounting to Rs.7069.It is averred that OP no.1 has wrongly charged the amount of Rs.7069 from it as the above said part of the car was within warranty period. It requested the OP for the replacement of the said part free of costs but the officials of OP no.1 told that since it(complainant) got its car serviced prior to the service date 25.1.2016 from other service station, as such, it has to pay the said amount.It is averred that due to some compelling circumstances, it got the car serviced on 2.11.2015 from City Motors, Samana (authorized service of Maruti) as it approached OP no.1 in the last week of October,2015, for the service of the car but it told to left the car at its premises at least for two or three days.It also made complaint on toll free No.1800 300 44444 to OP no.2 but to no effect.Thus the act and conduct of the OPs in having charging the amount of the part which was within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service for which it(complainant) is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, OP no.2 failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte, while OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle is used for commercial purposes. On merits , it is stated that the warranty and extended warranty is strictly subject to terms and conditions. It is admitted that the complainant brought the car for service and it charged the amount from the complainant.It is pleaded that the complainant got serviced the car from outside service station of Maruti and not from Renault authorized service station, so in these circumstances, the vehicle does not fall within the warranty period ande it has rightly charged Rs.7069/- from the complainant. It is stated that the complainant is well aware that vehicle is no more in warranty period and services charges will be charged on service of vehicle. There is no deficiency of service on its part. After denying all other averments of the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for Op No.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Baljinder Singh, Branch Manager alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that he went to the OP no.1 for the service of his car on 25.1.2016 i.e. within the warranty period but the said OP charged from him a sum of Rs.7069/- for the replacement of the pump assy. water. He requested the OP not to charge the said amount for the replacement of the said part, but he paid no heed to his request.
7. On the contrary, the stand of the OP No.1 is that since earlier the complainant got his car serviced from outside instead of Renault service centre, as such, there was breach of terms and conditions of the warranty, therefore, it had rightly charged the amount from him for the replacement of the part in question.
8. In para no.4 of the complaint, complainant himself has stated that he got his car serviced on 2.11.2015 from City Motors, Samana, which is the authorized service centre of Maruti, and has also placed on record the invoice dated 2.11.2015,Ex.C4, in this regard. As per the term No.5.2.2 of Renault New Vehicle Warranty Terms and Conditions,Ex.OP1, which reads as under:
“5.2.2 the defect observed is due to the Customer having had the vehicle repaired or serviced in a workshop out
the RENAULT authorized network and not observing the manufacturer’s recommendations on the subject
By way of consideration for the parts supplied by RIPL under the RENAULT New Vehicle Warranty, parts replaced under this warranty legally become the property of RIPL………………….”
the complainant has been righty charged for the replacement of the part in question. Since there has been breach of term no.5.2.2 of the warranty, on the part of the complainant, he is not entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him for the replacement of the part in question. Be that as it may be, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.,
ANNOUNCED
DATED:22.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
