DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th day of May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 30/07/2021 

CC/117/2021

Usha.K

    Thavidangattil House, Tharuvakkonam (P.O)

Panamanna, Palakkad – 679 501                               -         Complainant                                            

(Party in person)                       

                                                           V/s

1. Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

    NH 47, Mannuthy Bypass

    Kuttanellur, Thrissur – 680 014

    (Ex-parte)

2. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

    Plot No: 1, SIPCOT Industrial Park

    Oragadam, Mattur (P.O)

    Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram – 602 105

    (Complaint against 2^nd opposite party dismissed)

3. Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

    5^th Floor, Orchid Business Park

    Sohna Road, Sector - 48

    Gurgaon, Haryana                                                   -         Opposite parties

    (By Adv. C.Madhavankutty)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      Complainant purchased a vehicle “Datson RediGo” from the 1^st opposite party on 31/05/2018.  The vehicle is covered under extended warranty upto 4 years.  It had run around 23,000 kilometres and the final service was done on 14/09/2020.  Even after Scheduled service, the following issues were persisting in the vehicle. 

1. After starting the car, engine warning light remains ON in the instrument cluster and when changing the gear to drive mode, the gear won’t engage and the vehicle won’t move.
2. When the indicators are turned, the lights outside do not function.
3. Sometimes the indicators are completely dead.
4. When the vehicle is used at night, sometimes the instrument cluster backlight won’t turn on and if it turns on, it will not go off even after switching off the head lights and if it turns on, it will not go off even after switching off the head lights and removing the key.  The high beam indicator light also has the same issue.
5. The central lock button on the dashboard is not functioning.
6. When the vehicle is locked with remote, it unlocks itself, the very next moment.

Eventhough the complainant visited the service centre; nothing was done by the opposite party.  The complainant registered a complaint with the customer care and representative of the opposite party took the vehicle from complainant’s home on 24/11/2020.  After inspection, they found that the problem was with battery.  Even if the complainant did not agree with this, they supplied them with a new battery.  Even after repair, the problems with the indicators and central lock persisted. 

          Later they diagnosed the issue as being related to BCM and they informed that it is covered under extended warranty.  On 19/12/2020, the complainant was informed that their extended warranty claim was rejected as the last service was delayed by 3 months.  Because of Covid-19 pandemic, in order to minimize going out, complainant contacted the opposite party service centre and the staff of the service centre agreed to pick up the vehicle for service; but they did not come.  The delay in service was due to that and the service centre of opposite party informed that since the vehicle could not be taken due to the inconvenience from their side, the vehicle is still under extended warranty.

          Everything was clearly indicated to Datson; but they took the stand that the complainant has to pay the amount for spare parts and labour charge.  The complainant was forced to pay the money for making her vehicle in road worthy condition.  Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant was forced to spend money inspite of the extended warranty.

      So she filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to provide extended warranty and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,24,131/-

2.   Notice was served on 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  1^st opposite party did not appear and they were set ex-parte.  Complainant failed to take fresh steps against 2^nd opposite party and the complaint against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.  

3.   Main contentions raised by 3^rd opposite party in this version are as follows:

      They admit that the complainant purchased a “Datson RediGo” from the 1^st opposite party on 31/05/2018.  The warranty period of the vehicle was from the date of sale of vehicle i.e. from 4^th June 2018 to 4^th June 2021.  Extended warranty is supported through an Assurant team which has their own terms and conditions which are supposed to be followed for getting the benefits of the same.  Extended warranty period of the vehicle was from 04/05/2018 to 04/05/2021.  Due to service deviation, it was rejected by Assurant team.  3^rd opposite party being the manufacturer has no control over the functioning and processing of the extended warranty claims and the same is the sole purview of the Assurant team.  These terms and conditions are clearly explained to the customer by the Dealer at the time of purchase and it has to be strictly followed.  The vehicles are sold by this opposite party on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis and 3^rd opposite party has no relation with the servicing of the vehicle and it is the sole duty of the authorised dealer.

          The scheduled service of the vehicle after completion of 20,000 kilometres was due in the month of June 2020.  The complainant failed to do this and the vehicle was brought to the service centre only on September 2020.  It cannot be attributed to Covid-19 outbreak as there is a pickup service available from the dealer.  There has been a delay of 3 months on the complainant’s part; therefore as per the terms and conditions extended warranty was rejected.  It happened only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant.  Further, the complainant was offered a heavy discount of 50% on the repair by the dealer as a good will gesture. 

          There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.  The complaint is to be dismissed with the cost of this opposite party.

4.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the rejection of extended warranty benefits by the opposite party due to service deviation is justified?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the BCM of the vehicle repaired under extended warranty?
3. Whether the 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer of the vehicle has any control over the extended warranty claims and whether they are liable for the rejection of the claim?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
6. Reliefs if any.

5.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A11 marked from her side.  3^rd opposite party also filed proof affidavit.  Exts. B1 and B2 marked.  Heard.        

6.  Point No: 1 and 2

      Complainant’s grievance is that the vehicle she purchased from the 1^st opposite party had some issues and the same issues persisted even after the scheduled service of the vehicle.  The complainant entrusted the vehicle with opposite party’s authorised service centre.  But they could not find out the actual issue.  As per their findings, the complainant changed the Battery eventhough it had no issues.  Finally it was informed from the side of Datsun that the device named BCM (Body Control Module) is defective and it is not covered under extended warranty due to service deviation on the part of the complainant.  So she had to pay Rs. 9,000/- as cost of the spare part and Rs. 1,500/- as labour charge and after service they refunded Rs. 4,869/- as balance.  Eleven documents were marked from the side of the complainant.  Ext. A1 is the Account Statement for the period from 01/12/2020 to 31/12/2020.  This shows the payment of Rs. 9,000/- in favour of ‘Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.’ on 30/12/2020 and the refund of Rs. 4,869/- to the complainant on 12/03/2021.          

7.   3^rd opposite party’s contention in this regard is that the complainant is not entitled to get the extended warranty due to service deviations.  The scheduled service of the vehicle after completion of 20,000 kilo metres was due in the month of June 2020 and it was brought to the service centre only in September 2020.  It cannot be attributed to Covid-19 outbreak as there is a pickup service available on the dealer’s end.      

8.   Complainant stated that because of Covid-19 pandemic and to minimize going out, she contacted the service centre few days before 06/06/2020, the scheduled date of service and they assured to take the vehicle.  But they did not turn up and finally the complainant took the vehicle on 14/09/2020.  Since that period was the most crucial period due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and strict restrictions imposed by Government, the delay of 3 months cannot be taken as a valid reason for denial of extended warranty.  The complainant is entitled to get full benefits of the extended warranty.  The opposite parties cannot deny it on the reason of delay in servicing particularly during Covid-19 pandemic.  Points 1 and 2 are decided accordingly.          

9.  Point No: 3    

      3^rd opposite party’s contention is that they being the manufacturer of the vehicle has no control over the extended warranty claims.  It is supported through an Assurant team which has their own set of terms and conditions which are to be followed for getting the benefit. 

          But it cannot be accepted.  Warranty is given by Datsun.  Ext. A3 clearly mentions that ‘Datsun Extended Warranty’ will be honoured by all Datsun Authorised dealers across India.  Further, Ext. A9 also shows that the entire warranty is given by Datsun and no dealer or its agent or employee is authorised to extend or enlarge the warranty or to make any oral warranty on Datsun’s behalf.  Datsun’s decision is final and binding on the owners of the vehicle on all warranty matters.  Datsun reserves the rights for the final decision on all warranty matters. 

          So it is clear that 3^rd opposite party has control over the warranty claims and they are liable for the rejection of the claim.  Point No: 3 is decided accordingly.                  

10.    Points 4 to 6

      Complainant’s main grievance is that even after service, the issues in the vehicle pertaining to lights, indicator and central lock button.  Representative of authorised service centre of 1^st opposite party took the vehicle on 24/11/2020 and diagnosed the issue as relating to battery.  Eventhough according to complainant there was no issue with the battery, they purchased a new battery and supplied to the opposite party.  After repair, the complainant collected the car on 03/12/2020.  The repair included replacement of two real wheel bearings.  On 08/12/2020, itself they got all the same complaints related to indicators and central lock which was the reason for sending the car to repairs and the opposite parties took it on 09/12/2020.  At first they were not able to find out the issues, and later diagnosed as being related to BCM.                 

11. Ext. B1, vehicle history states all these problems.  Complainant produced a series of e-mail communications between the complainant and Datsun Customer Care which reveals that for servicing of the vehicle they took 3 to 4 months.  The reason stated by they was the delay in getting the parts.  Even after payment for repair, the opposite parties delayed the service by 3 to 4 months causing inconvenience to the complainant.  Further, even after repeated requests, they did not give a written explanation for the denial of extended warranty and the actual issues in the vehicle. 

          The 1^st opposite party dealer and 3^rd opposite party manufacturer are responsible for their deficiency in service and consequential mental agony and financial loss caused to the complainant.  The complainant suffered inconvenience due to delay in getting the vehicle after service.  Further, denial of extended warranty caused financial loss to her.  The conduct of the opposite parties made her file this litigation causing additional expenses. 

      In the result, complaint is allowed.  

      We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally

1. To refund Rs. 4,131/- (9,000-4,869) the amount collected for repair with 10% interest from 30/12/2020 till realization.
2. To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation.      

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 17^th day of May, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                       Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Tax invoice dated 31/05/2018.

Ext. A2: Extended warranty certificate cum invoice.

Ext. A3: Extended warranty certificate.

Ext. A4: Vehicle service invoice dated 14/11/2018.

Ext. A5: Vehicle service invoice dated 07/06/2019.

Ext. A6: Vehicle service invoice dated 14/09/2020.

Ext. A7: Vehicle service invoice dated 11/01/2021.

Ext. A8: Vehicle service invoice dated 12/09/2022.

Ext. A9: Extended warranty details.

Ext. A10: Mail to Datsun customer care.

Ext. A11: Bank statement of complainant.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext. B1: Copy of the vehicle history report.

Ext. B2: Copy of the terms and conditions of extended warranty.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side:

Witness examined from the opposite parties side:

Cost: Rs. 5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.