Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/563/2015

Varun Ahluwalia - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ms. Moushmi Mittal

08 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	563 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05.10.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	08.05.2017

 

 

 

 

Varun Ahluwalia s/o Late Sh.Karan Deep Ahluwalia, R/o H.No.141 (Officers Transit Flats), Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.        

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) – Head Office ASV Ramana Towers #37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600017 through its Managing Director-cum-Chief Executive Officer.

2]  M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.182/2, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its General Manager.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Ms.Moushmi Mittal, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OP-2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, as alleged, the complainant, a Civil Servant belonging to Indian Audit and Accounts Service, purchased a new vehicle Renault Duster Car amounting to Rs.11 lacs (approx..) bearing Regd. No.CH01-AQ-0227 Model 2012, from M/s Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., Phase-1, Chandigarh (OP No.2) on 23.10.2012 and the vehicle was carrying comprehensive warranty of 2+2 years i.e. upto Oct., 2016 (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that the complainant has only driven the said vehicle about 12000 kilometers till July, 2015.

         It is stated that in July, 2015, the complainant noticed seepage/ingress of the water from underneath the vehicle in question, as a result many a times water found accumulated in the said vehicle, especially on rainy days and accordingly, the same was got pumped out.  The matter was reported to the Opposite Party NO.2 firstly on 12.7.2015 and then on 17.7.2015, whereupon Job Card (Ann.C-4) was issued.  It is submitted that the car in question remained with OP No.2 for repairs/rectification of defects w.e.f. 17.7.2015 to 24.7.2015.  It is also submitted that when the complainant visited OP No.2 to take delivery of the vehicle on 25.7.2015, the complainant raised certain queries about the nature of repair job carried out and also brought to the notice of the concerned staff that the carpet was still not replaced and stinking, the antirust coating, upholstery cleaning and Teflon coating of the vehicle was not done.  Consequently, OP No.2 kept the vehicle for doing the needful and ultimately delivered it to the complainant only on 24.9.2015.  It is further submitted that the OP No.2 took undue long time in rectifying the defects and repairs in the vehicle in question, as a result the complainant has to suffer a lot inconvenience. 

         It is pleaded that OP No.2 had offered to compensate the complainant @Rs.2500/- per day but only w.e.f. 13.7.2013 till 24.7.2015 i.e. for a period of 12 days, but later modified the same on the condition of producing the taxi bills for the said period at the dealership, which was opposed by the complainant. It is also pleaded that the complainant received the delivery of the car as well as an amount of Rs.40,000/- as offered by the OP No.2 on account of inconvenience caused to him, after registering his protest and concern on the issue as well as on material alteration to the design since, firstly, the OPs had failed to make the payment of agreed amount of Rs.2500/- per day for the total number of days the vehicle remained with dealership for rectification of defects/repairs, secondly, the OPs had made alterations to the original design of the vehicle and had fitted additional discharge pipes to the vehicles, which was not the standard equipment of the Renault Duster Car at the time of purchase and thirdly, on account of immense physical and mental agony, harassment suffered for a period of more than 2 months.      

         It is submitted that even after keeping the vehicle for 2 months and carrying out all necessary repairs, there is still leakage/seepage of water inside the car, as a result, the complainant is unable to drive it.  It is also submitted that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party NO.1 has filed reply stating that whatever correspondence and transaction took place was wholly between the complainant and OP No.2 and the OP No.1 has no role in it either directly or indirectly.  Moreover, the nature of agreement between the OP NO.1 & 2 is on principal to principal basis.  It is stated that by the own admission of the complainant in Para No.5 of the complaint, it is well established that the stench/unpleasant smell emanating from the interior of the vehicle was as a result of the presence of the fungus (mould) under the carpet of the front mat.  It is also stated that the appearance of the fungus is not a normal phenomenon neither is it a flow arising from any inherent manufacturing defect present in the vehicle.  It is also stated that the complainant himself admitted in the complaint that he used to travel most of the time by his official vehicle and less frequently by his personal vehicle, which clearly evidence from the distance travelled by the vehicle till July, 2015 since the date of purchase i.e. October, 2012,  car in question covered a distance of 12000 kms in about 20 months.  It is further stated that this is ample proof of the fact that the vehicle used to be neglected and remained idle in the shed of the official accommodation most of the time, thus providing ideal and conducive conditions for the growth and spread of fungus in the vehicle.  It is submitted that the vehicle suffered from poor maintenance and the vehicle owner was negligent in not following the instructions laid down in the maintenance service booklet and the driver’s handbook diligently.  It is pleaded that the complainant is neither having any expertise nor is an automotive expert to state that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect and neither has the complainant taken any expert opinion to support his allegations of manufacturing defect.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant approached the answering Opposite Party with complaint of seepage of water in the car on 12.7.2015 and on checking, it was found that the ducts under the bonnet of the vehicle had been blocked with the falling leaves as the vehicle was kept in the open by the complainant for a long time without caring to clean the same at regular intervals.  It is also stated that the complainant again approached the answering Opposite Party on 17.7.2015 with complaint of water entry inside the vehicle.  At that time, the carpets fixed in the vehicle were all wet and the same required at least two days’ time to dry in rainy season, which was continuing.  It is further stated that the vehicle was thoroughly checked by giving shower test and as a precaution, the answering Opposite Party replaced the door strips/door seals under warranty, so that there remain no chance of water entry from any point and on completion of said job, the complainant was asked to take the delivery of his vehicle on 19.7.2015, but the complainant demanded the replacement of carpet, Teflon coating, anti-dust coating and free service, which too was done, but even then the complainant did not take the delivery of the car by 24.9.2015 and ultimately, it was delivered at his office on 24.9.2015.  It is pleaded that though the complainant did not produce any taxi bill, but still the answering Opposite Party paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant only with the motive that their customer should not remain annoyed for any reason.  It is mentioned that the manufacturing companies from time to time had been issuing instructions to improve the vehicle and suggesting changes and in pursuance thereof, the pipes of the vehicle in question have been changed with which the running of the vehicle and its design has not been affected, as such, the complainant has no reason to be aggrieved.  It is pleaded that the car of the complainant is not having any defect much less manufacturing defect or inherent defect.  It is also pleaded that the complainant had taken delivery of his car only on 24.9.2015 after receiving the payment of Rs.40,000/- as compensation. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinders have also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply of Opposite Parties.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       The complainant filed the present complaint with the allegation of seepage of water inside the car in question.  

 

7]       It is a matter of record that the complainant duly intimated the Opposite Parties regarding the said problem for which the car was left at the premises of Opposite Party No.2 for the necessary action i.e. inspection and for rectification of the defects. 

 

8]       The evidence produced on record by the parties reveals that the car in question was delivered to the complainant after two months from the date of its submission with the Opposite Party NO.2 for repairs. It is further an admitted aspect that after much persuasion and thorough follow-up, the Opposite Parties have paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for the inconvenience suffered during the period of two months when the car remained with Opposite Party NO.2 for repairs. 

 

9]       It is pertinent to mention here that to resolve the alleged dispute in the complaint, the parties were directed vide zimini order dated 7.6.2016 to the following effect:-

“Learned counsel for the complainant is directed to take the vehicle to the workshop of OP-2 and OP-2 is directed to check the vehicle of the complainant as per complaint and submit the report.”

        

10]     As per the order stated above, an inspection of the vehicle was conducted in the presence of both parties, and the shower test, as was required to diagnose the problem of leakage/seepage of water inside the car, was also done, but no such defect or problem of seepage of water was found in the vehicle.  This report dated 8.6.2016 submitted by Sh.Shashi Bhushan, General Manger, Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., clinches the whole matter and contradicts the allegations of the complainant. The relevant extract of the said report is reproduced as under:-

 

    “For checking the complaint/problem noted by the representative of complainant, the shower test was done on the vehicle for about 40-50 minutes in presence of the representative of complainant.  However, during the said shower test, the water did not enter in the vehicle of the complainant. There is no other test to verify the defect lodged by the complainant. After the completion of shower test, the representative of the complainant signed the job card & invoice of the vehicle as a token of correctness of the test.

     So from the shower test conducted by the undersigned and also by visual observation of the vehicle, no defect was found in the vehicle in respect of entry of the water in the cabin.”

   

 

11]      The complainant, to controvert the above Inspection Report, has not placed on record any sufficient evidence or any expert opinion to justify his allegations, as set out in the complaint about leakage/seepage of water inside the car.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties had already redressed the grievance of the complainant by making payment of Rs.40,000/- for inconvenience suffered by him for the period the car remained with Opposite Party NO.2 for repairs.  As well the complainant also failed to prove vide cogent evidence that he was committed to pay Rs.2500/- per day for the period the car in question remained with OP No.2.

 

12]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out or proved against the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  

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

Announced

8^th May, 2017                

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER