Haryana

Panchkula

CC/432/2019

VARUN GAUTAM. - Complainant(s)

Versus

REANULT INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NISHI.

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	432 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	05.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	19.01.2023

 

                  

Varun Gautam aged 33 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar Gautam, resident of Flat No.67-C, Guru Nanak Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

 

    ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, 4th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600017, through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory.

2.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd., Sales Office, 502, 5^th Floor, Town Centre-II, Sakinaka, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri East-Mumbai-500059 through its Branch Head/Authorized Signatory.

3.     Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., 363, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula-134109, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

4.     Jaswant Singh, Service Manager, Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., 363, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula-134109.

                                                                ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Nishi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1                       & 2.

                        Sh. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.3                    & 4.

ORDER

Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a new car, namely, Renault Duster RXE from OP No.3 in June 2015`. The extended warranty of the said car was purchased for another two years by paying a sum of Rs.11,670/-. It is alleged that the car was having the starting problem since its purchase, but the OP No.3 assured that the starting problem would be over after the first and second service of the car, but the same did not vanish.  The complainant had requested the OPs to replace the vehicle with a new one or to refund its purchase price, but his request was not acceded by the OPs on one pretext or the other. In the month of January, 2019, the complainant again approached the OP No.3 for getting the service of the said car and conveyed it about the pick-up and starting problems. All the problems were noted down in the job card. A sum of Rs.26,929/- was charged by the OP No.3 from him stating that many parts were replaced and that the vehicle would have no problem. It is alleged that even after paying the amount of Rs.26,929/- to OP No.3, the problem of pick up, hard clutch and starting issue still persisted. It is alleged that the rectification of the said defects was covered during the warranty, but the OPs failed to resolve the same. Rotary switch of the vehicle was not changed and the complainant was asked to visit again after few weeks. On 21.02.2019, the rotary switch of the car was changed during the extended warranty and a sum of Rs.502/- was taken from the complainant as labour charges, but the starting problem remained the same and the engine used to create a lot of noise, while going upwards on the hills. The complainant again approached the OP No.3 in the month of June, 2019 and requested it to resolve all issues of pick up and starting problem as warranty was expiring in the month of 15.06.2019. The filter of the vehicle was changed and he was charged a sum of Rs.709/-, but the issues of pick up and starting problem were not resolved. On 13.07.2019, the complainant again approached the OP No.3 informing it about the alleged issue in the car, whereupon, the OP No.3 denied to do the minor denting & painting work stating that he had to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- for rectifying the defects as the warranty period had expired. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged by the complainant at customer care of OPs No.1 and 2, but no positive response was received. Thereafter, the complainant took his car to PMG motors for minor denting-painting work, where he came to know that the car was having manufacturing defect in it and the same was not liable to be resolved as the engine is defective. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the customer care numbers of OPs informing that the officials/representative of PMG motors had informed him about the manufacturing defect in the car. On this, the representative of OPs No.1 and 2 Mr. Abhinav, informed the complainant that he would get the defects of the car rectified from PMG motors within 24 hours. On 27.07.2019, again the customer care of OPs was approached requesting to look in his complaint, but without any fruitful results. Due to the act and conduct on the part of OPs, the present complaint has been filed claiming the following relief :-

        i)      To return a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- + Rs.11,670/- as amount              spent in extended warranty.

        ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental and                  physical agony, harassment, medical expenses, damages.

        iii)     To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as litigations expenses.

2.             Upon notice, the OPs No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections therein that the complaint is not maintainable as no consumer dispute is involved in the present complaint; There has been no deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(42) of the Act; the OPs No.1 and 2 are not liable for any deficiency or deficient service on the part of its dealer as there is relationship of Principle to Principle between the manufacturer and the dealer. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on mis-joinder of parties i.e. OP No.4 as he has acted as an employee of OP No.3. The complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no expert opinion in favour of the complainant’s version. It is stated that as per the warranty terms, damage to the vehicle, in case, is caused due to own acts of complainant than the same would not be covered under clause 4.5 of the warranty clause. Further, it is alleged that manufacturer is not liable for any damage resulting due to poor maintenance or misuse of the vehicle. It is stated that vehicle had been extensively driven by the complainant i.e. over 74,539 KMs over a period of 50 months and there had been no issue with respect to the working of the vehicle. The said vehicle is being continuously used by the complainant and as per service history of the vehicle, the complainant was happy and satisfied with the services of the OPs. It is stated that it is highly improbable for the complainant and blame the OPs for any issue in the vehicle, when the same had been driven for over 74000 KMs. The vehicle has no defects and without any expert report, the request of the complainant for the replacement of the vehicle is not valid. Under the head of brief facts, in the written statement, the details of last 20000 KMs as per car history has been given as under:-

        a)     On 12.06.2017 (driven 38930 KMs), the vehicle was received     for accidental repairs.

        b)     On 22.112017, (driven 47,803 KMs), the vehicle was        received at workshop of OP No.3 for service which was done     including the change of engine oil, filter, oil etc. as per standard.

c)     On 16.06.2018(driven 58,054 Kms), the vehicle was received at OP No.3 workshop, where its engine oil and other oils were replaced, fuel injectors and valves were cleaned during service. The complainant was informed that the battery, tyres, air filters and wiper blades requested to be replaced as the same had worn out/ outdone their utility, but the complainant refused to get the same replaced.

d)     On 17.01.2019 (driven 67,533 KMs), the fuel injectors were cleaned and service was done. The issue of long self for starting the car was also resolved by OP No.3 by replacement of battery. The complainant was again informed that all tyres have worn out and required the replacement. He was further informed that clutch was hard and needed to be replaced.

        e)     On 21.02.2019 (driven 68,538 KMs), the rotary switch was        replaced under warranty.

f)      On 08.06.2019 (driven 73,174 KMs), the vehicle was reported for low pick up issue and the vehicle was diagnosed by the technicians of OP No.3 on all parameters and was found working in standard conditions. During inspection, it was observed that the air filter had got choked by dust and pollution and required the replacement.

        g)     On 13.07.2019 (74,307 KMs), the vehicle was brought for accidental repairs.

        h)     On 05.09.2019 (driven 74,539 KMs), the vehicle was brought     at the workshop of OP No.3 in connection with the bad smell in the      vehicle, which was cleaned from inside.

                It is stated that the complainant was negligent in the maintenance of vehicle and whenever a recommendation was made by the technicians of OP No.3 for replacement of physical part i.e. its tyres, brakes or air filters/battery, the same were refused by the complainant.

                In parawise reply, the averments made in the preliminary submissions/ preliminary objections have been reiterated.

                Upon notice, OP No.3 and 4 appeared and filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against OP No.4 as he is none other than just an employee of OP No.3. It is stated that the vehicle had already been driven for around 74,500 KMs in a period of 50 months, which required proper maintenance as the same had been stated to be driven in hilly areas. The complainant has skipped the first service of the vehicle, which was to be done at 2000 KMS and the second service, which was to be done at 10,000 KMS, but he got the same at 13,362 KMS. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle was purchased from it by the complainant and extended warranty was provided at his option. The complainant was advised to get the battery, tyres, air filters and wiper blades replaced, but he refused the same. It is stated that he has not got the tyres replaced even after driving it for a distance of 74000 KMs. The complainant, whenever approached the OP No.3, for any fault, the same was taken care of with immediate effect and on priority basis. It is stated that the complainant was negligent towards the maintenance of the vehicle. The complainant was satisfied with the services done by OP No.3 and he gave remarks in this regard, while taking the vehicle from OP No.3. On 08.06.2019, the vehicle was reported about the pick-up problem and starting problem and to resolve the same, air filter was changed and thereafter all parameters were checked, which were found correct. On 13.07.2019 the complainant approached it for repair of the vehicle, which was damaged in some accident.

                During inspection, the engine of the vehicle was found damaged and the complainant was advised to get the engine refurbished as the internal parts of engine had got damaged due to bad management of the vehicle by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had contacted the OPs on its customer care number. It is submitted that the complainant had failed to maintain the vehicle in a good manner; hence, the prayer for dismissal of the present complainant has been made.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents AnnexureC-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPsNo.1 to 2 tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A and R1/B along with Annexure R1/1 to R1/5 and closed the evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs No.3 and 4 tendered affidavit Annexure R3/A along with documents as Annexure R3/1 & R3/2 and closed the evidence.

                During the arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered the bill dated 29.05.2016 amounting to Rs.30,000/- and warranty card and the photocopy of bill dated 14.05.2019 amounting to Rs.34,598/-  qua the  purchase of tyres. The said bills and warranty card are taken on record as Mark A to Mark C for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties in a proper and fair manner. 

4.             During pendency of the complaint, the matter qua the defects in the vehicle was referred to Senior Mechanical Engineer Government Central Workshop, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh vide order dated 06.02.2020 on the application dated 08.11.2019 filed by the complainant. The expert report was received vide letter No.332/WC/GCW dated 05.08.2020. The OPs No.1 and 2 have filed objections against the said expert report, which shall be discussed hereinafter in the later para of this order

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record available on the file including the written submissions/synopsis and written arguments filed by the parties as well as the expert report and objections thereto.

6.             During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that the problem of pick up etc. in the car had started soon after its purchase and the Ops No.3 and 4 were repeatedly requested to resolve the issue. It is contended that the defects in the vehicle had arisen during the warranty period and thus, the OPs were liable to rectify the same. It is vehemently contended that the OPS had failed to rectify the defects in the car as it was having manufacturing defect in it and thus the prayer made in the complaint seeking the refund of the purchase price is valid and legal.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPS No.1 and 2 has resisted the complaint, apart from merits, by raising several preliminary objections in its written statement. As per preliminary objections, the plea has been taken that the complaint do not disclose any consumer dispute between the parties.

                This objection is rejected as the complainant, having purchased the vehicle, which was manufactured by OPS No.1 and 2, from OP No.3, has been raising the issue qua the pick-up problem in the vehicle during the extended warranty period.

                The next plea taken by Ops No.1 and 2 is that the relationship between the manufacturer (i.e. OP No.1 and 2) and its dealer (i.e. OP No.3) is based on the Principal to Principal basis and thus, no liability qua any deficient services rendered by the dealer can be fastened upon the manufacturer i.e. OPs No.1 & 2. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws:-

(a)    Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Nagendra Prasad Sinha & Anr.(Review Petition No.674 of 2004) decided on 04.05.2009 by Hon’ble National Commission.

(b)    Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala &anr. [(1994) 1 SCC 397)] passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

(c)    Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Daimler Chrysler India Ltd.) & another Versus Intercard (India) Ltd. 09.05.2013 in First Appeal No.100 of 2009 LMIND 2013 NCDRC 482.

                This objection, being devoid any merit, is liable to be rejected because the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle during the extended warranty period.

8.             The next objection taken by OPs No.1 & 2 is that there is no expert opinion substantiating the allegations leveled in the complaint. In this regard, the reliance have been placed on following case law:-

(a)    Krishanpal Singh Vs. Tata Motors Limited, II (2014)CPJ                     731(NC)

(b)    Ram BhagatVs. M/s New Holland Fiat (India) Pvt. Ltd. & another,        Revision Petition No.2088 of 2013 decided on 03.10.2013 (LNIND   2013 NCDRC 758)       

(c)    Khanna Automobiles, Opposite Aggarsen College & Anr.Versus Shri     Rajesh Kumar (LNIND 2013NCDRC 286)

(d)    Ajay Kumar Vs. M/s Anand Auto Mobile and Anr.Revision Petition        No.2685 of 2016; 2017(3) CPR 259 (NC)

(e)    BaljitKaur Versus Divine Motors and others, 2017 (3) CPR 224    (NC), Revision Petition No.1336 of      2017

                This objection is also rejected as the expert report is available on record as the same was received vide letter no.332WC/CGW dated 05.08.2020 from Senior Mechanical Engineer, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

9.             On merits, the learned counsel for OPs No.1 and 2, reiterating the averments made in the written statement & affidavit  Annexure R1/A  & R1/B, vehemently contended that the vehicle had already been extensively driven by the complainant i.e. more than 84,000 KMs, over the last 60 months and thus, there can be no question of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is contended that, as per terms and conditions of the warranty, only replacement of the defective parts or the rectification of defects, is permissible and not the replacement of the vehicle or the refund of its purchase price. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon case law H. VasanthakumarVs. M/s Ford India Ltd. Rep.by it’s G.M. SingaperumalKoilChengleput & another, LNIND 2009 NCDRC 21.

               Continuing the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complainant was extremely negligent qua the maintenance of the vehicle as he had failed to get the battery, tyres, air filters of the vehicle replaced despite the advice given to him on 16.06.2018 and 17.01.2019 by the technical persons of the Ops No.3 and 4. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel stated that the complaint deserves dismissal being baseless and frivolous.

10.            The Ops No.3 and 4, while opposing the prayer of the complainant qua replacement or refund of its purchase price has taken almost similar pleas as taken by the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 and 2. The learned counsel for Ops No.3 and 4 reiterating the averments made in the written statement has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being baseless and meritless.

11.            Before proceeding to look into the rival contentions raised by the parties qua the merits of the case, we deem it expedient to discuss the findings given by the expert i.e. Senior Mechanical Engineer, Govt. Central Workshop, Haryana, Chandigarh and the objections filed thereto by OPs No.1 and 2.

12.            The Ops No.1 and 2 has objected to the validity of the expert report on the ground that they were not associated by the expert, while conducting the inspection of the vehicle in question. The learned counsel on behalf of Ops No.1 ad 2 has contended that the inspection of the vehicle had no validity as the same was carried out after the extensive use of the vehicle by the complainant for a period of more than 60 months. It is contended that the complainant was solely responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle during its use over a period of 60 months and the OPs are not aware about any changes or alterations or repairs made by any unauthorized persons during the said period. It is vehemently contended that there was no possibility of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect in it as it was being used and utilized extensively over a distance of 81,000 KMs in the past 60 months. It is contended that the Local Commission has failed to look into the improper maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant, which had led to the wear and tear of the Engine parts i.e.its rings etc. It is further contended that the local Commissioner had also overlooked the accidental history of the vehicle in question and thus it has been prayed that the Local Commissioner Report is not liable to be relied upon being contrary to real facts and law.

13.            After hearing the objections qua the expert report, now we advert to the expert report, wherein it has been pointed out that during inspection, the vehicle was driven over a distance of more than 374 KMs in the presence of representative of OPs No.3 and 4 and that Mobil Oil was found consumed excessively. Since inspection was carried out in the presence of Ops No.3 and 4, who had sold the vehicle to the complainant, and who are the authorized dealer of OPs No.1 & 2, the non-association of OPs No.1 and 2 during inspection is/was not likely to make any kind of difference. Thus, the objections raised by Ops No.1 & 2 qua the validity of local Commissioner’s report carry no merits. The expert opinion is quite clear and does not suffer from any legal infirmity and it specifically points out that consumption of the Mobil Oil was on very higher side. Qua the objections raised by OP No.1 and 2 about the accidental history of the vehicle, it has been pointed out in the expert report that the said accident had caused damages on the outer side of the vehicle causing no impact on the engine. In view of the above discussion, the objections raised by Ops No.1 and 2 as well as Ops No.3 and 4 are rejected.

14.            It is not in dispute that the car in question was provided the extended warranty, as per Annexure C-2, by charging a sum of Rs.11,670/- upto 80,000 KMs or 4 years, whichever is earlier. The vehicle was purchased on 16.06.2015; as such, the warranty was extended upto 14.06.2019. As per perusal of car history, the issue of poor pick up & starting problem in the vehicle was raised by the complainant on 08.06.2019, so the issue was raised within the warranty period. However, complainant has not been found to have raised any issue qua the pick-up and starting problem in the car prior to 08.06.2019 as alleged by him that the vehicle was having the said issues since its very purchase. It is also correct that he was advised by the technical persons of OPs No.3 and 4 to get the tyres or filters etc. replaced. The complainant has failed to rebut the contentions of the Ops qua the change of air filters. As per car history, air filters were replaced on 27.10.2016 and thereafter, the same were changed/replaced on 17.01.2019 and thus there was a gap of more than 2 years between the change of air filters.

15.            We find force in the contentions of the OPS that non replacement of air filters after a period of over 10 KMS affects the smooth functioning as well as the pick-up of the car. Regarding replacement of tyres the complainant has placed on record the bill dated 29.5.2016(Mark ‘A’) amounting to Rs.30,000/-& the bill dated 14.5.2019 (Mark ‘B’) amounting to Rs.34,598/-, which shows that the complainant had got the tyres replaced on 29.05.2016 and 14.05.2019; thus, the contention of the Ops with regard to non-replacement of tyres are not tenable. However, it is relevant to highlight here that the complainant had got the tyres replaced after driving the car for a year only, which  indicates  towards the rough driving or/maintenance of the car. Since, the vehicle has extensively been used by the complainant over a distance of around 80,000KMs for the last 5years, the prayer of the complainant qua its replacement or refund of its price is not fair and justified. The accidental history of the vehicle on several occasions is not disputed. However, the issues pertaining to low pick up etc, were raised by the complainant  before the expiry of the warranty period; therefore, the  OPs cannot be permitted to escape from their liability to rectify the defects so as to make the vehicle road worthy in a hassle free manner. Moreover, it has been found as per Annexure C-8 &C-9 that the complainant had incurred an expense amounting to Rs.88,000/-in  getting the rectification of defects of the car. The said repairs were got carried out from PMG Autos Private Limited, which is an authorized dealer of OPs No.1 & 2. Even after spending an amount of Rs.88,000/- by the complainant at his own level, the defects could not be got rectified. The vehicle is still lying in the custody of authorized dealer of OP No.1 for the last 2/3 years. Therefore, in the backdrop of above narrated facts and circumstances, the present complaint is partly allowed and in our considered opinion, it would be fair, reasonable and justified to direct the OPs No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, to replace the entire engine of the vehicle with new one, so as to make the car in a road worthy condition; hence, the Ops No.1 to 3 are ordered accordingly. Further, the OPs No.1 to 3 are burdened with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid  to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Further, a sum of Rs.5,500/- shall be paid  by the OPs No.1 to 3 to the complainant on account of litigation charges.   

16.            The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:19.01.2023

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal     

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal                  

                                          President

 

 

C.C. No.432 of 2019

Present:             Ms. Nishi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1                       & 2.

                        Sh. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.3                    & 4.

                       

                        Arguments heard. During the course of arguments, the photocopy of expert opinion  appended with the letter  no.332WC/CGW  dated 05.08.2020 as received from Senior Mechanical  Engineer,  Govt., Central Workshop, Haryana, Chandigarh in pursuance to our order dated 06.02.2020,  has been taken from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs No.1 & 2 as the original report has been found misplaced. None of the counsels has raised any objections qua the taking of photocopy of said report on record. Now, to come upon 19.01.2023 for orders.

Dated: 06.01.2023

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                                Member                  President

 

 

Present:             Ms. Nishi, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1                       & 2.

                        Sh. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.3                    & 4.

                       

                 Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 to 3 with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.19.01.2023

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg                Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                   Member                        Member                     President