ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the deficiency  in service in charging Rs.16,000/- towards repair charges even though the vehicle was within the warranty period for free service and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the expenses incurred to get the other vehicle for travel due to the delay in handing over the vehicle after repair, and for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards the engine service warranty and for  such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant purchased a DUSTER car from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1 during the month of December 2015 and same was registered with Regn.No. KA 02-ML-2246. Along with a purchase warranty, the warranty was given for the engine performance without any problem upto 80000 kms. It also provide three free services for better maintenance.  It is contended by the complainant that for every 10000 kms, he got the vehicle duly serviced till 02.04.2019 and after the said service, it has to run for 10000 kms without any issue. Whereas, due to negligent act and deficiency in service the said vehicle stopped all of a sudden near Lalbagh west gate on 02.04.2019 at 10 am when it had just covered 4000 kms after the service, which should have lost long till 10000 kms. 

3.     The vehicle stopped in the middle of the road at 10 am and he had to wait for the proper response from OP-2 till 2.30 pm when the same was towed to the service station of 2^nd OP. There was no proper response from the OP-2 as to what has happened to the vehicle. Upon repeated requests for more than 10 days he came to know that the engine of the vehicle got seized and OP-2 informed him that the issue would be solved within 5 days.

4.     It is contended that complainant being a professional by doctor requested through email on 19.04.2019 to provide alternate vehicle for his movements as it would be difficult for him due to the delay in repairing the said vehicle.  OP-2 neither replied nor provided any alternate vehicle. He had to depend on the cab service by paying high rent to attend the emergency work and the hospital work by travelling nearly 25 kms from his residence during night time also.

5.     After several request Op.2 to deliver vehicle as early as possible, on 27.04.2019 at 8 pm, OP.2 demanded for payment of Rs.16,000/- towards the repair of the engine which was ceased due to deficiency in service by OP-2,  though it was within the warranty period.  At that time, OP-2 abused the complainant with filthy language and threated that you cannot take back the vehicle without its permission. Complainant demanded proper explanation and assurance with extended warranty and OP-2 was not ready to deliver the car and denied proper explanation in respect of the extended warranty . He had to issue a legal notice in that respect. 

6.     OPs neither showed any interest or complied the demand made in the notice. Hence they are liable to make good the loss and for compensation for deficiency in service.  Though he had paid huge amount to purchase the car the claim of the OP of demanding Rs.16,000/- was illegal but he the same to safeguard his interest and obtained the delivery of the car on 16.05.2019.  OP-2 has deliberately delayed in getting the vehicle repaired and delivered the same for which he was to suffer a lot, both physically and mentally. OP has to pay Rs.23,000/- along with interest and to extend the warranty and further to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental agony, stress and physical inconvenience . OP-2 has deliberately delayed in delivering the vehicle and hence the complaint.

7.     Upon the service of notice OP.1 and 2 appeared before the commission and filed their separate version. In the version filed by OP.1 which is voluminous running to 14 pages OP.1 was directed to file abridged version but it did not file the same.

8.     In the version filed it is contended that the complaint filed is on false, malicious incorrect grounds and an abuse of process of law with vague, baseless allegations and with a mala-fide intention.

9.     It is manufacturing high quality standard vehicle company by providing warranty and guarantee for the vehicle. OP.No.2 is its dealer appointed on principal to principal basis. The entire sale transaction as the vehicle by the complainant is with OP-2 only, hence OP.1 cannot be held liable for whatever reasons.

10.   It is contended that complainant purchased RENAULT DUSTER LMV manufactured by it, during December 2015 and the same was registered as KA 02 ML 2246. It came to know that the said vehicle broke down on 02.04.2019 on the road side and the same was towed to the service station of OP-2. After inspection, it was found that the engine has seized due to the cut in the engine timing belt which is an important part of the engine and when the same was inspected by the team of OP-2, it was found that there were other issues in the vehicle and same was reported to the warrantee team to take necessary action and approval. On 27.04.2018 the complainant visited Op-1 for taking delivery of the vehicle and he was appraised about the amount required for the service charges and the spare parts that was changed. Complainant refused to take the delivery of the vehicle. On 16.05.2019, the service center of OP-1 reported that the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. There is no allegation made against Op.-1 and all the allegation are against Op.2 in respect of the service. There is no consumer and customer relations to the complainant and OP-1. He do not fall under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no role on the part of OP-1 in carrying out the repair to the vehicle and it is the outlook of OP-2 who is the authorized service personnel. There is no privity of contract between OP.1 and the complainant.  Denying each and every allegations made in the complaint, prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

11. In the version filed by OP-2, it is contended that the complaint filed is with a mala fide intention, on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It has admitted that it is a service center of the vehicle manufactured by OP-1 and is a dealer of OP-1 in selling its products.

12.   It is contended that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster car on 10.08.2016 from it and got it registered with  Regn.No.KA 02 –ML-2246. The said vehicle was provided with extended warranty till 02.04.2019 . When the vehicle completed total trip of 10000 kms service shall be free for first three services, and the next services are the charged one.

13.   It is further contended that on 02.04.2019 the car was brought to OP -2 service station by towing and after receiving the vehicle, they opened a job card. The vehicle had run 63,113 kms as on that date.  The towing assistance and the breakdown assistance service was operated and provided by the manufacturer. It was not within its knowledge the reason  for the delay in towing the vehicle.  Before the breakdown of the car, i.e. on 24.04.2019, on 06.01.2019 the said car was left with OP.2 for paid service by then the vehicle had done  59,814 kms. The service staff carried the service and delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  Once again the complainant left the car for service on 02.03.2019 when the vehicle run 61,786 kms. From 06.01.2019 to 02.03.2019 the vehicle has travelled a distance of 1,972 kms at an average of 35.85 kms p/day.  On 02.03.2019 to 02.04.2019 in a span of 30 days, the vehicle had run for a distance of 1,327 kms on an average of 45 kms/per day. When they received the vehicle due to break down, they found that the same was due to the cut in the “engine timing belt” due to external factor  as a result there was an excess damage caused to the engine. 

14.   The vehicle has an extended warranty period. Even then, the timing belt which got cut due to external factor is not covered under the policy. Upon the approval of the executives of OP, they dismantle the engine and found that and the engine head  had excessively damaged and accordingly the same was informed to the TVS team about the engine head condition and based on their inspection, and approval, ordered for engine for the said vehicle.  Though there was no product failure or premature failure on the part OP-2, as a good will gesture, supported and reduced the cost of repair to the complainant.  It is further contended that even though vehicle is under extended warranty, some defects are not covered  and for which the consumables are to charged.  The complainant was informed and  updated that the cost of the repair would be Rs.16,020/- for the consumable as it is not included in the warranty period, which the complainant refused to pay.

15.   The Complainant requested OP-2 to speedup repair work as the delay would cause inconvenience to him for his travel for want of vehicle. OP-2 gave priority to the complainant’s vehicle but still, the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle till  16.05.2019 and denied paying for the consumables which shows unprofessional attitude of the complainant and made demands which was not acceptable by OP-2. When he was approached on 27.04.2019 to take the delivery of the vehicle he refused to receive the vehicle from service center and raised demands in respect of the charges  and that he shall not be charged for the same as there is additional two year warranty on the vehicle and also demanded taxi fare. With a mala fide intention, complainant issued a legal notice on 13.04.2019 which was replied through its advocate and afterwards, complainant took the delivery of the vehicle.  Once again, on 12.06.2019 the said car was left with OP-2 for its service.

16.   It has denied all the allegations made against it in the complaint. The technician of the OP-2 intimated the complainant about the condition of the car whereas, they never assured that it will be resolved within 5 days. He was informed that the engine work has to be carried out and no time for period was assured.  He was also informed that the engine work is a major work and the vehicle to be dismantled, and some problem may come up which are unable to be noticed during the initial examination, and can be noticed when the vehicle would be dismantled and it has also to keep all the required internal parts of all the brands of the vehicle only the main spare parts and essential for repair work and are prone to damages in an accident will be kept ready in the inventory of the spare parts.  The delecate and the internal parts of the engine and other crucial parts of the engine of the respective manufacture got on the adhoc basis and repair works carried works based on the receipt of the parts. The same was intimated/informed to the complainant. Though it was within its knowledge, he is making false allegations. They had made a good repair prior to breakdown of the engine on 02.04.2019 and they have a good relationship with the complainant.

17.   Afterwards they repaired the vehicle and brought it in a road worthy condition. Whereas, complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle with male fide intention. The engine work was completed on priority basis knowing that the complainant would come forwards to take the vehicle at the earliest point of time and that they have charged only for consumable as it was not included in the warranty policy.  Though the vehicle was ready for delivery, complainant intentionally did not take the delivery of the vehicle. OP-1 and 2 have ISO 9001-2001 certificate which acknowledge the quality of service rendered by it.  They sell vehicle to the customer after pre-delivery inspections. Under the circumstances, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor any defect in the service render to the vehicle and also there is no deficiency in service on its part in charging for the consumables even though the extended warranty in existence and hence it is not liable to pay any of the claims made by the complainant and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint by imposing exemplary cost to the complainant.

18.   In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2)        Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

19    Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2:     In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

20.   Upon perusing the entire documents, version and the complaint, it becomes clear that the complainant is the owner of car Renault Duster bearing Reg. KA 02 ML 2246 manufactured by OP.1 purchased through OP.2. It is also not in dispute that, the said vehicle stopped in the middle of the road on 02.04.2019 at about 10 am and towed to the garage of OP-2.  It is also not in dispute that prior to such a stoppage the said vehicle was serviced with OP-2 when the vehicle had covered 59,814 kms and according to the complainant it ought to have covered up to 69,814 (10,000 kms after the service).

21.   It is the contention of the complainant that, the said vehicle stopped in the middle of the road on 02.04.2019 when it had just covered 63,130 kms after service at 59,814 kms and the same was towed to the garage of the Op to wherein after some days it was disclosed that the engine has seized and its head has become damaged and it has to be repaired and it is due to the cut in the timer belt.

22.   It is the contention of the complainant that OP took more time to get it repaired and charged Rs.16,000/- for repair when it is under the extended warranty and he refused to pay the said amount as it is covered under warranty and refused to take the deliver when OP -2’s men informed on 27.04.2019 to receive the vehicle as the vehicle has been attended and duly repaired. It is also the contention of the complainant that OP did not offered him an alternate vehicle for his movement and OP-2 took more time t hen required to repair his vehicle and thereby he had to spend lot of money to make alternate arrangement for his travel and thereby has to suffer physically and financially.

23.   On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the OP-2 that though it carried service when the vehicle had covered 59,814 kms, the said vehicle all of a sudden stopped on the road on 02.04.2019 and on verification it was found that the timer belt connecting the engine and the other part got cut and due to it, the engine seized and head damaged and to ascertain as to what has happened to the vehicle, it took some time and then ordered for the parts which usually not stored by it, which took more time to procure the said parts and afterwards changed / replaced the parts and repaired the vehicle and also intimated the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards the labour and repair charges without charging the parts which were covered under the extended warranty.

24.   OP has also produced the entire detailed list of repairs carried out to the said vehicle.  On perusing the same it has charged for the consumables such as, washer gas oil, gasket water pump, HSG Complo-wate, ring exhaust BA, Seal exhaust manifest, gasket turbo EXH, seal PRI cataly, Air filter, Oil filter, Engine oil, Prestigrade TS 15 W 40, Radiator coolant , AC compressor fluid, Seal Oil filter, PVC cleaner, Service consumables, Draining of oil, replacement of oil filter, replacement of the oil coolant, flanges and screws.

25.   Whereas, for other items, it is mentioned as covered under the warranty and not charged the for the same. In the original warranty and extended warranty it is of common nature that the manufacturer and the service provider who gives the warranty do not provide warranty for the consumables. Only the spare parts are covered. When this is taken in to consideration we cannot find fault of OP-2 charging for the consumables. 

26.   In view of this, we cannot find fault with OP-2 and also we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on its part as it rightly informed the complainant that the vehicle was ready on 27.09.2019 itself whereas the complainant did not take the delivery of the vehicle  on the ground that he is not bound to pay the charges levied by OP -2 . It is to be observed hear that the complainant as well as OP-2 have not produced the terms and conditions of the extended warranty. Even then the warranty do not cover the consumables, the gaskets, the oil filters, the replacement of the oil, the air filters which are consumables which has wear and tear due to the running of the vehicle.  Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1 and 2 and we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result and complainant is not entitle for any of the relief as claimed in the complaint and we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 30^th day of June 2021)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Tax Invoice

Ex P2: Copy of the debit note

Ex. P3: Copy of the warranty document

Ex P4: Copy of the letter to OP-1

Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice.

Ex P6: Copy of the tax invoice.

Ex P7: Copy of the reply notice

Ex P8: Postal acknowledgment.

 2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Narasimhan G.N, Dy.General Manager Admin of OP-2.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Vehicle history.

Ex R2: Copy of the reply notice.

Ex R3: Postal receipt for having sent legal notice

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

*RAK