Haryana

Panchkula

cc/220/2014

LT.COL NIKHIL PAREEK. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENAULT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

MR.DHIRAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI.

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                                

Consumer Complaint No	:	220 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	22.04.2015

                                                                                          

Lt. Col. Nikhil Pareek, CO, Western Command Internal Security Group C/o 56 APO.

                                                                                     ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. ASV Ramana Towers, 4^th Floor, # 37-38, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017, Tamilnadu, India.
2. Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tricity, Panchkula 363, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula.

                                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Coram:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor , Member.

              Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

                             Mr.Vikas Sharma, Adv., for the Op No.1.

                             Mr.Bhaskar Sharma, Adv., for the OP No.2.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. Lt.Col.Nikhil Pareek-complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Duster Diesel HP RXE from the OP No.2 vide invoice No.VSLA 13000238 (Annexure C-1) dated 19.01.2014 after going through the advertisement published by Ops in newspaper about the Duster Diesel HP RXE and claimed that four benefits would be provided to the customers i.e. (a) Exchange Benefits upto Rs.60,000/- (b) Additional 02 years warranty (c) Free Road side assistance for 4 years and (d) Free Gang of Duster Membership. After purchase, the complainant has sent many emails dated 07.09.2014, 17.09.2014, 28.09.2014, 19.10.2014 and 28.10.2014 to the Ops but they did not issue free gang of duster membership card after passing of over nine months which act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op no.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the Op No.1 has principal to principal relations with Op No.2 and did not deal with the end customers. It is submitted that “Gang of Dusters” (GOD) was a group, created and established by Op No.1 for Duster owners. It is submitted that the activities of GOD was managed by an Agency called Arvato on behalf of the Op No.1. It is submitted that as per records, the Op No.1 had sent the Welcome kit on three occasions but it could not be delivered to the complainant and the same was returned to origin, therefore, it showed that the complainant has not provided correct or full address of communication. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a reputed and respected company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Tamilnadu, engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobiles including cars and sport utility vehicles (SUV). It is submitted that on 24.01.2014, the complainant registered himself through G.O.D. website. It is submitted that the complainant, in his address, has just mentioned “Chandimandir Cantt”. It is submitted that on 23.04.2014, the Op No.1, a management agency “Arvato” for Gang of Duster made a verification call to confirm the details and to take confirmation on the registration. First time the consignment i.e. welcome kit, booklet, membership card, coupons with membership benefits etc. were sent on 22.08.2014 at the address provided by the complainant through speed post having air way bill No.AWB#EH5059399151N which complainant reported as not received. It is submitted that on 20.10.2014, welcome kit was also sent to the complainant through DTDC courier bearing airway bill No.AWB# Z36858480 but the same received back with a remark “Customer’s Non Availabilty at the Residence”. It is submitted that third time on 01.12.2014, the welcome kit was also re-dispatched through FedEx courier service bearing airway bill No.AWB#805743651323 but the complainant refused to accept the same and Op No.1 also received a e-mail from FedEx courier that “package is undelivered as the consignee has refused to accept the shipment”. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections & submitted that the complainant has not approached the Op No.2 with his grievance and has not sent any legal notice for redressal of his grievance. It is submitted that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster Diesel HP RXE from the Op No.2 on 19.01.2014. It is submitted that the Op No.2 forwarded the requisite documents to the Op No.1 informing them about the sale of Duster RXE 85 PS from its dealership by the complainant. It is submitted that after the sale of car from the dealership, the Op No.2 has no role to either grant or refuse the gang of dusters membership to the buyer of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is a dealer of Op No.1, however, no unprofessional or deficient behavior could be attributed to the Op No.2 as the membership of Gang of Dusters was neither provided by the Op No.2 nor did the OP No.2 has any role in the grant of membership. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of Op No.1 has been filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their case, the authorized representative for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A & R1/B along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence. Similarly, the counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered the evidence Annexure OP2/1 & OP2/2 and stated that his written statement by way of affidavit be also read as his evidence and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely.
7. The factum of purchase of a duster Diesel HP RXE by the complainant from OP No.1 through its dealer OP No.2 on 19.01.2014 is beyond the pale of controversy. There is unanimity of pleadings, as between OP No.1 and OP No.2, on the point that the ‘Free Gang of Duster-Membership’, which had been advertised as one of the four benefits to be provided to the customers-vide advertisement Annexure-II, was in fact to be provided by OP No.1 (and not OP No.2). There also is no controversy that OP No.2 had forwarded the relevant intimation of purchase and the documentation in the context, to OP No.1 and, thereafter, the needful had to be done by OP No.1 and not by OP No.2.
8. In order to establish that it did indeed forward the Gang of Duster (the welcome kit, booklet, membership card and coupons with membership benefits etc.) to the complainant on 22.08.2014 (through a management agency titled “Arvato”). However, the consignment was returned for want of complete address inasmuchas the complainant had only mentioned “Chandimandir Cantt”. The records of that speed-post air way bill are not available with OP No.1 “as the concerned vender only archives the data for last three months”. On receipt of intimation from the complainant about the non-receipt of the welcome kit, it was again forwarded to him, through DTDC courier on 20.10.2014. This time too the welcome kit was returned by the courier due to non-availability of the addressee at the residence. Again, on 01.12.2014, the consignment was resent to the complainant through FedEx Courier Service. It did reach the complainant who, however, refused to receive it. These are the precise averments made by OP No.1 in the course of the written statement.
9. In the course of the rejoinder, the complainant denied other allegations were conceded having declined to receive the consignment in the month of December, 2014 as he had already filed the complaint in November, 2014 and the matter was sub judice at that point of time.
10. It is illogical for OP No.1 to aver that the first consignment could not be delivered for want of complete address. The complainant is concededly an Army Officer of the rank of a Lt. Col. He was posted at Chandimandir Cantt. at that point of time. He was not expected to give any house number or the name of the lane where he was residing. If the courier agent would have gone to Chandimandir Cantt., there is no reason why he would not have been led to the complainant or someone who could receive it on his behalf. The averment with regard to the return of the consignment for the second time due to the alleged non-availability of the complainant too deserves to be negated for the very reasoning recorded for negativing the other plea with regard to the non-delivery of the parcel. The refusal by the complainant during the pendency of this complaint cannot be viewed in any adverse manner vis-à-vis him. Here was an individual who was entitled to the announced benefits. When those were not granted to him for sufficiently long time and he was impelled to file this complaint, there was nothing un-natural on his part to refuse to receive it. We quite agree that he might have accepted the consignment without prejudice and proceeded with the complaint. However, a man not familiar with the legal terminology, cannot be expected to be that meticulous in the context.
11. The present is, thus, a case wherein the complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. While, thus, allowing the complaint in favour of the complainant and against OP No.1, we would order that: -

     a)       OP No.1 shall provide the relevant benefit (Free Gang of Duster Membership Card etc.) to the complainant;

     b)       OP No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony caused to him; and

     c)       OP No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

12. OP No.1 shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. 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

22.04.2015   ANIL SHARMA        ANITA KAPOOR      DHARAM PAL

                     MEMBER                 MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

 

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

                                          

                                            

                                                ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                MEMBER