Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/785/2019

Gurmukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) - Opp.Party(s)

Balwinder Singh Adv.

02 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	785 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	20.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	02.02.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gurmukh Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Sh.Jawala Singh, resident of House No.5120/B, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh 160014

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) – Head Office ASV Ramana Towers, # 37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 through General Manager.

2]  Renault India Private Limited (RIPL), Sale & Marketing, and North/Central Regional Office, Plot No.11, 3^rd Floor, Sector 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon 122002 through its General Manager.

3]  BENCHMARK Motors Pvt. Ltd., C-110, Phase-7, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab through its Director.

4]  PMG Autos Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO.47, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Director Mohit Singh

5]  Sunil Verma, Service Manager, PMG Auto Pvt. Ltd., Showroom No.47, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER 

                                                   

Argued by  : Sh.Balwinder Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Jaiveer Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.Ashish Rawal, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2.

 

   Sh.Sandeep jasuja, Adv. for OP No.3.

   Sh.G.S.Sidhu, Adv. for OPs No.4 & 5.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         Briefly stated the complainant purchased brand new Renault Kwid Car, for his personal use on 25.9.2018, from OP No.3, manufactured by OPs NO.1 & 2, after getting it financed from Nissan Renault Financial Services (Ann.C-1). The complainant got the car insured as well as registered with RLC, Chandigarh vide Regd. No.CH-01-BT-1449 (Ann.C-2 to C-4).  The car in question was carrying manufacturer warranty upto 24.9.2022 or 100000 KMs, whichever is earlier and the warranty starts from the date of delivery of the vehicle (Ann.C-6). It is stated the complainant got the car serviced on 22.11.2018 (Annexure C-7). On 13.06.2019, some starting problem occurred in the vehicle and the same was brought to the notice of OP No.4 who got replaced some parts i.e. “starter Motor and accelerator pedal” and the vehicle was delivered with assurance that the problem will not occur in future. However, on 21.06.2019,  the  same  problem again occurred.  It is averred that the complainant described the  “starting problem” and sudden break down of the car to Official of OP No.4 but it delivered the vehicle without his complete satisfaction.

         It is pleaded that on 07.07.2019 at about 12.30 PM when the complainant along with his wife were going towards Landran from Kharar, then near Galaxy Heights Apartments, AC of the car got shutdown automatically and fumes started coming out from the bonnet of the; the car was completely breakdown and automatically locked.  Somehow the complainant, with the help of the bystanders, came out from the car. Thereafter, the complainant opened the bonnet, found some fumes arising out from the engine and reported this to OP No.4 (authorized service provider).  Even the roadside assistance came along with towing vehicle with much delay of 3 hours and towed the vehicle to OP No.4.  It is stated that on 07.07.2019, OP No.4 changed the same parts which have already been changed on 13.06.2019 when the car of the complainant encountered with the “starting problem”.   It is submitted that after carrying out the necessary repairs to the tune of Rs.20,235/- by OP No.4, the vehicle was delivered on 13.07.2019 and the same was checked by the nephew of the complainant and it was found that the problem was not rectified as upto-mark, therefore, a non-satisfaction note on the invoice was recorded (Ann.C-17) but it did not bother about the unsatisfactory notes and condition of the vehicle and forced the complainant to take the delivery with the same condition. Even the employees of OP NO.4 i.e. OP No.5 also admitted the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is also submitted that since the vehicle was not upto mark, so, the complainant again approached OP No.4 on 18.04.2019 who took the vehicle in their possession stating that the technical team from the Head Office (OP No.2) was called and they would carry out the necessary scans & inspection and would rectify the problem.  On 19.07.2019, the Service Manager called the complainant and informed that the vehicle was ready for taking the delivery and he was not made to meet the technical team intentionally by OP No.4 in connivance with OP No.5. It is stated that the vehicle in question is having some manufacturing defect and the OPs have not fulfilled their assurances and not gave proper services. Alleging that the said acts & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have filed joint reply stating that on 13.03.2019, the complainant visited for the issue of breakdown in the vehicle and after diagnose the starter motor was replaced under warranty. It is stated that on 21.06.2019, the complainant again visited OP No.4 with the issue of breakdown and the same was resolved by change of ignition switch. However, the complainant was told that since the ignition system has been damaged, the entire ignition system (which includes starter motor, ignition switch, fuse) needs to be replaced.  It was told that the said part was not available and it may take some time and the complainant was advised that the vehicle should not be used since consequential damages could be caused but the complainant and his assignee insisted to take the vehicle. After receipt of the parts on 22.06.2019, the complainant was given several calls but he brought the vehicle on 07.07.2019 and it was discovered that due to constant use of the vehicle, despite warning, the ignition system has been damaged and the wiring harness attached to the starter motor has melted.  On 08.07.2019, a new wiring harness was also ordered and the same was delivered on 12.07.2019 and on 12.07.2019 all the necessary replacements of the starter motor, ignition switch, fuse and wiring harness were carried out and the vehicle was working satisfactory.  However, the complainant and his assignee created a ruckus at the workshop on 12.07.2019. The complainant was offered by OP NO.4 a reimbursement of his taxi fare for 3 days upto Rs.1000/- per day and the same was availed by the complainant. On 13.07.2019, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in working condition.  It is pleaded that the vehicle has suffered damages due to the negligence of the complainant himself. It is also averred that the complainant has failed to mention the nature of alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and is seeking replacement of the same. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, the OPs No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

         The OP No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that the complainant has never approached it after he visited dated 22.11.2018 and on the said date no defect was pointed out. It is stated that the complainant has no grouse against it and the complainant has concealed the fact that he was compensated for the breakdown by providing Rs.3000/- as taxi charges evident from Annx.C-13.  It is submitted that as per the warranty terms, the OPs are liable to replace the defective parts only and not to refund the price of the vehicle or replace. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect as alleged. Remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Lastly, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by OP No.3.

 

         The OPs No.4 & 5 have also filed reply submitting that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and they are not liable for any claim as claimed as the vehicle was purchased from another dealership i.e. OP No.3. It is admitted that on 13.06.2019, some starting problem occurred in the vehicle and some parts namely ‘starter motor and accelerator pedal’ were replaced, free of costs within warranty and on 22.06.2019 Prot Dispo CVR was replaced free of cost and on that day order regarding ignition lock part was placed with the company i.e. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant was asked to not to take away the car from the workshop but he insisted that he will bring the vehicle whenever the part is received from the said company.  It is stated that though the complainant purchased the vehicle from OP No.3 but they tried to redress the grievance of the complainant to the best of its capacity.  It is denied that on 07.07.2019, they changed the same parts which have already been changed on 13.06.2019. It is also stated that the vehicle in question was inspected by the RIPL Team and even communication to that effect took place between Renault Customers Care Indian Ltd. and an email dated 20.07.2019 was also sent to the complainant.  It is submitted that the complainant was provided taxi charges to the tune of Rs.4000/-. It is also submitted that the complainant was not even charged a single penny for repair works done on the vehicle. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of the OPs as made in their reply.

 

4]       We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

5]       It is undisputed that the complainant purchased the car in question on 25.9.2018 from OP NO.3, manufactured by OPs NO.1 & 2, carrying warranty of 2 years or 50,000 KMs., whichever is earlier, from the date of its delivery.

6]       The OPs No.1 & 2 have admitted that the car was reported with issue of breakdown on 13.6.2019 and after inspection, its starter motor was replaced under warranty, without any charge.  They also admitted that car in question was again reported in July, 2019 with issue of breakdown and on inspection, it was found that its ignition system has been damaged; wiring harness attached to starter motor has melted and therefore, all necessary replacement of starter motor, ignition switch, fuse & wiring harness were changed, under warranty, and the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 13.7.2019 in satisfactory working condition.

 

7]       The record reveals that after 13.7.2019 as well as after filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.8.2019, the car of the complainant was not reported with any issue of breakdown or major fault nor it has been so submitted by the complainant during pendency of present complaint.

 

8]       Taking into account the above position, we are of the opinion that though the vehicle has not been reported with any major repair/fault after 13.7.2019 nor there is any expert report from complainant’s side to establish manufacturing defect in the car as on today, but it is clear that the new car of the complainant was repaired for breakdown issue within first year of its purchase, so the mental, emotional and physical harassment of the complainant is well founded. The complainant spent his hard earned money on the purchase of brand new car to enjoy its hassle free ride and a brand new car is expected to perform/function well at least during its warranty/extended warranty period, which is not the position in the present case. It is important to mention that due to major repair during first year of its purchase, there has been a clear depreciation in the value of the car.  Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 is writ large and the complainant deserves to be fairly compensated. 

 

9]       From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards harassment, mental agony and depreciation of his new car, along with litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

         This order shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

10]      The complaint qua OPs NO.3 to 5 stands dismissed.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

2^nd February, 2023                                                                           

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER