BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.263 of 2020
Date of Instt. 03.09.2020
Date of Decision: 24.05.2023
Sarita Gill D/o Dinesh Chander R/o H. No.17, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Renault Automobile, through its Auth. Person, G. T. Road (NH- 1), Guru Gobind Singh Avenue, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144004.
2. Benchmark Motors, (P) Ltd. Through it’s Auth. Person, Jandiala Guru, Opp. Fateh Academy, Near Haveli, G. T. Road, Amritsar.
3. M/s Renault India (P) Ltd. through its Auth. Person, 502, 5th Floor, Town Centre II, Sakinaka, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400059.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Vikas Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Walia, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant approached the OP No.1 Showroom to purchase a Renault Kwid RXT 1.0 Easy R-Options Car (Color Planet Grey) and the representative of OP No.1 stated that presently there is a shortage of this Color which the complainant has showed the interest, but they can arrange the same from their other showroom i.e. OP No.2, which is situated at Jandiala Guru but they have to deposit Rs.4.96,768/- as Full and Final Payment Amount and Rs.23,232/- Insurance Charges and the Complainant agreed to this and deposited the same Through Two Cheques Bearing No.320576 Dt. 29/04/2019 & 320577 Dt. 30/04/2019 and after the receiving of the same the representative of the O.P No.1 stated that if you want to leave they can leave and when the car reached the O.P No.1 premises they will handed over the same to their residential address and after a spame of time the representative of O.P. No.1 called the Complainant further Stated that have to deposit Rs.10,000/- as Towing & Delivery Charges and the complainant agreed the same and issued a cheque Bearing No.320573 and the representative of O.P. No.1 Stated that only to Fill only Amount and Rest will be Filled by him and believing on the contention to be true, the complainant issued the same to the representative of O.P. No. 1, the representative of O. P. No.1 on 01/05/2019 handed the possession of the said Car vide Retail Invoice No.CS/ASR/0042/19-20 dated 29.04.2019 for a sum of Rs.4,45,499/-. On the same day of the delivery of the car the complainant come to know that Roof Light of the car was not working and she informed this to the representative of O.P. No.1 and the representative of O.P. No.1 replied that it is pitty issue and he will resolve the same as he will arrange the mechanic and visit to the house of the complainant for this problem but he didn't come to resolve the issue. After some days from the purchasing i.e. on 11/05/2019, the two door of the left side of the car of the complainant was been Scratched and side mirror was broken by someone, as the car was parked in the street and for the removal of the starches and to install the side mirror of the car of the complainant, the complainant approached the OP No.1 on 14/05/2019 and after the thorough inspection of the Car of the Complainant the OP No.1 received the car and issued a repair Order-Customer Copy of the car to the complainant and in this Repair Order-Customer Copy, the type of Service Copy is mentioned as BP and RO No.ROJLKA20000644 Dt. 15/05/2019 and the representative of the O.P No.1 assured the complainant that her car will be ready in 3-4 days and same will be delivered to the complainant. After 3 days the representative of the O.P No.1 called the complainant that there is an another problem in the car and there is a Problem in the central Locking and Speedo Meter also and after the Receiving the call from the representative of the O.P No.1, the complainant along with her sister reached the company service station and they were surprised and shocked to know that all the doors of the car were removed and were lying on the floor, the car bonnet was also open and the tyres of the car was dusty as the car was being driven out of the service station and drove in a dusty place and on this act of the OP the Complainant raised an Issue that there was a scratch on the left side of the door and side mirror is to be replaced, then why all the doors are removed and speedometer was removed and no satisfactory answer being provided by the representative of the O.P. Finally, the complainant has got no other option except to mail the opposite parties and through email the complainant requested them to replace the above said defective Car or to return the amount of the Car and the opposite parties doesn't reply to the complainant in a positive manner and the complainant has called the OPs many a times but, till today the OPs neither has replaced the above said Car nor they have returned the amount of the Car. Last Week the representative of the OPs called the complainant and flatly refused to accept the terms and condition of the complainant. Due to the unprofessional business dealing, the complainant is suffering a lot from the hands of OPs that created mental tension & harassment & loss of business and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed either to replace the above said defective car or to return the amount of the car with interest. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false and misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that the complainant is not a consumer. The Complainant has admitted in his Complaint that the car was damaged by the unknown persons and not due to any manufacturing defects. It is true that the car of the complainant herein has damaged and mirror of the car broke and therefore there is no question of any cause arose against the present opponent. In view of this, the Complainant cannot be categorized as a Consumer within the four corners of law; and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that report of an appropriate laboratory has not been obtained - The OPs No.1 and 2 states that for proving defects in goods, an elaborate procedure has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In fact, in so far as manufacturing defect is concerned, the Complainant is obligated to obtain a report from an appropriate laboratory which the Complainant has not done. In view of this, the complaint renders itself liable to be dismissed for want of substantiation. The reliefs sought cannot be granted as against the answering OP- The OPs No.1 and 2 states that in the instant case, it has attended to the vehicle as an authorized service centre of the Principal Co. In fact, in the instant case, they have not even sold the car to the Complainant though they are authorized dealers too. And considering the limited role played by the OPs No.1 and 2 purely as a service provider, the reliefs such as replacement of car and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs etc. cannot be sought from them. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the car by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant had chosen particular colour and the same was not available at the OP No.1’s showroom and the facts regarding visit by technical team for checking and inspecting the car is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is fale, malicious, vexatious and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The claims raised in the complaint are inconsistent with the material facts and are raised with ulterior motive to misguide this Commission. The complainant has malafide intention to secure a favourable order for his own wrongful gain in wrongful manner against the answering OP. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action that has arisen against the answering OP and in favor of the Complainant. No particular/categorical relief has also been sought against the answering. All averments and submissions made by the Complainant and allegations raised are in general or against the OPs No.1 and 2 in particular. Hence, the present complaint is liable to dismissed against OP No.3 for want of cause of action. It is further averred that the answering OP has wrongly been impleaded as a party to the present dispute. It is humbly submitted that as per Doctrine of privity under Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations under it on any person except the parties to it. A third person cannot be entitled to demand performance of the contract. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the car by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.
7. The complainant has purchased the Renault Kwid RXT from OP No.1 on 01.05.2019 vide invoice dated 29.04.2019 for Rs.4,45,499/-. The invoice has been proved as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 is the tax invoice. Ex.C-3 is the RC in the name of the complainant. The car was duly insured and the certificate of insurance policy has been proved as Ex.C-4, which was effective from 30.04.2019 to 29.04.2020 against own damage and it was effective from 30.04.2019 to 29.04.2022 against liability cover. The complainant has proved the bank statement Ex.C-5 to prove that the total amount of Rs.4,45,499/- was withdrawn from the bank for the payment to the OPs. The warranty has also been proved, which is the part of the Ex.C-5 page No.15. The cheque has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-10 and the premium given to the insurance company through cheque has been proved as Ex.C-11.
8. The complainant has alleged that on the same day when the car was delivered, there was a problem in the roof light of the car, but the OP No.1 assured that this issue will be resolved and on 11.05.2019, the two doors of the left side of the car got scratched and side mirror was broken by someone as the car was parked in the street. The complainant approached OP No.1 to remove the scratches and to install the side mirror of the car and the repair order was given to the complainant, which has been proved as Ex.C-8, which is dated 15.05.2019 and it was mentioned in the description as ‘carry out accidental repair (insurance claim)’ The complainant has alleged that after three days, the OP No.1 called the complainant and told her that there is a problem in the central Locking and Speedo Meter also. When the complainant went to the showroom, she found that the doors of the car were removed and were lying on the floor, the car bonnet was open and the tyres of the car was also dusty. The complainant has proved on record the photographs of the car Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-42, which shows the doors were lying open. The complainant has further alleged that there was en email conversation between the complainant and the OPs regarding the complaint filed by the complainant against the workers and the reply of the OPs, wherein she has expressed her dissatisfaction with the working of the OPs and the staff of the OPs. In a email, she has given in detail the problem being suffered by her immediately after the purchase of the car. She has categorically alleged that there was a problem of minor scratches and the breaking of the left mirror in the car and there was no problem of central Locking and Speedo Meter, which was later on informed to her by the OP with no fault of the complainant. This clearly shows the manufacturing defect of the car. The reply has also been sent to the OPs and the inconvenience has been regretted by the OPs.
9. The OP has alleged that the OP cannot check the electrical issue at the complainant’s home that is why they had called the complainant to the workshop. It has been admitted by the OP that during the inspection and checking of the car, the OP found that the cause of the problem is BCM i.e. Body Control Module and it is the electric part concern. Therefore, the technical team has to disconnect the power of the module before just trying to remove it from the car and verify that there is no electrical wire or connection got cross. The BCM of the vehicle was replaced free of cost as the vehicle was under the warranty. The two doors of the car were open to remove the scratches, but he has denied all other allegations. It has been submitted by the counsel that due to the accident, warranty no longer remains, therefore the complainant has to bear the expenses for the parts to be replaced.
10. It is admitted and proved that on the day when the car was purchased, there was a issue of roof light. Though, Ex.C-8 shows that there is a mention of fact that carry out accidental repair insurance and the complainant has also alleged that there were minor scratches and left mirror was broken by someone un-known, but the things remain that there was a problem of roof light of the car at the time of giving delivery of the car to the complainant. It is the duty of the OPs to supply the car or product to the complainant/customer in a perfect condition. The complainant had spent Rs.4,45,499/- + insurance and other charges to enjoy the facility, but when the customer gets the problem on the same day and more so, when there is no proper reply on the part of the OPs, definitely it comes within the definition of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The photographs produced on record by the complainant clearly show that the vehicle was new one and the doors are lying removed. The paint has been shown in the photographs to show that the same is being repaired and scratches are being removed. The complainant had not made any complaint regarding the central locking problem or speedo meter problem. It was written in Ex.C-7 that there is a check central locking not working and the last visit date was mentioned as 20.07.2019, whereas the date and time when the car was sent to the OP is dated 21.05.2019. The emails show the dates afterwards i.e. of June, 2019. There is no complaint of the complainant regarding central locking problem and speedo meter. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was a problem of central locking or speedo meter, then this is not the fault of the complainant nor any such accident took place, which may cause harm or problem to the central locking or speedo meter. It is admitted by the OP that there was some electrical fault, then it is the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs to handover the defective car or the car which is not in a perfect condition. This clearly shows that when the car was handed over to the complainant, it was defective and it was having manufacturing defects, either it may be of electrical or anything else. There should not be any defect in a new car for which the complainant has spent the huge amount of Rs.4,45,499/-. Since the insurance claim was there and it was under warranty, so there are no rules and regulations or guidelines to show that once the accident happens, the warranty goes. So, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to replace the above said car with new perfect car to the satisfaction of the complainant, if the complainant so wishes within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. If the complainant wants to purchase another car, then the complainant will pay the balance amount to the OPs. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance i.e. compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
24.05.2023 Member Member President
