By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant purchased Renault triber RXZ model car bearing registration No. KL 55 AB 4911 from the second opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,63,550/-. At the time of purchase the second opposite party informed the complainant the mileage of the vehicle is 20 kilometres per litter. But the vehicle availed only 12 kilometres per litter and so the same informed to the second opposite party. He assured that it will be alright after the first service of the vehicle. The first opposite party had given advertisements about the same on various Medias. But even after completing two services within one year the mileage available to the vehicle was 12 kilometres and moreover clutch disc and fly wheel was replaced even before covering 10,000 kilometres and the vehicle was laid up on the way twice due to defect to the sensor. Hence the complainant alleges the vehicle has got manufacturing defect and the practice of the opposite party amounts unfair one and so prayed to refund Rs.7,63,550/- or to replace the car.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice both opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
3. The first opposite party filed version denying the all allegations in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The first opposite party submitted that they manufactured the vehicle through stringent quality checks and road trails before the commercial production starts. The vehicle is manufactured at the plant of the opposite party are also thoroughly inspected for control systems , quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for despatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a principal to principal basis of sale of the cars. The present complaint is miss conceived, based on wrong facts, vexatious and has been filed with malafide intention bearing the complainant has failed to show any deficiency of service as alleged on the part of the opposite party
4. The opposite party submitted that the complainant did not purchase any goods or availed any services from the opposite party and so the complainant does not qualify to be a consumer within the meaning of act.
5. The opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the second opposite party and the sale transaction was took place between the complainant and the second opposite party and so there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the first opposite party. The privity of contract exist only between complainant and second opposite party and the first opposite party being the manufacturer of the vehicle have no express role in the transaction.
6. The opposite party submitted that the vehicle in question does not have any manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint but complainant has very conveniently alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle without substantiating any claim with documentary evidence. It is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was brought to the service centre of second opposite party on 16/12/2019 with mileage issue. The technicians of the second opposite party duly under took the inspection with respect to the issues as alleged by the complainant and the technicians of the second opposite party duly checked the fuel system of the vehicle which was found to be working without any defect as alleged by the complainant. The first opposite party alleged that the complainant refrained from undertaking the joint inspection of the vehicle after the same was repaired by the technicians of the second opposite party. The vehicle of the complainant was again brought to the service centre of the second opposite party on 27/07/2020 with issues in the vehicle such as engine fault warning, warning lamp glow, key battery low, less fuel economy and less AC cooling etc. Accordingly, the technicians of the second opposite party under took the repairment of the vehicle and accordingly starter reply of the vehicle was replaced to resolve the intermittent starting issue in the vehicle. Further technicians of the second opposite party had educated complainant with respect driving tips to enhance the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. Thereafter also the complainant refused to undertake joint inspection of the vehicle after the same repaired by the second opposite party. The AC cooling of the vehicle was found to be working without any defect and the same had been duly communicated to the complainant. On 07/11/2020 again the vehicle was brought to the second opposite party for second free service and the same was duly undertaken to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is submitted that the vehicle had been delivered to the complainant as per his request and the complainant was very much satisfied with the services provided by the second opposite party and there was no issue raised with respect to the service by the complainant. The complainant brought the vehicle to the second opposite party on 19/12/2020 with issues in the vehicle such as rear AC blower, clutch pedal noise while the vehicle is in reverse gear. Accordingly the technicians undertaken the service and thereby clutch kit and fly wheel of the vehicle had been replaced to resolve the issue with respect to the abnormal noise while the vehicle is in reverse gear. The air-conditioned blower assembly was also rectified to cater to the issue with respect to air-conditioning system of the vehicle.
7. Hence, the submission of the opposite party is that all the part which had been replaced in the vehicle had been done under the warranty terms and conditions of free cost basis and the complainant has not been charged with any repair under taken in the vehicle. The opposite party submitted the brief vehicle history as part of the version. The submission of the opposite party is that all issues in the vehicle were duly repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant by the second opposite party and the same can be ascertained as the complainant has failed to raise any issue with respect to fuel efficiency on his last two visit to the service centre of second opposite party that is 07/11/2020 and 19/12/2020.
9. The submission of the opposite party is that bearing the complainant fails to establish manufacturing defect. The complainant is not entitled to claim replacement or refund of the vehicle and the opposite party cited various decisions of the National Commission and also the apex court in the similar matter. Hence it is submitted that the vehicle does not possess any defects as alleged by the complainant and so the complainant is not entitled any relief from the first opposite party.
10. The second opposite party also denied the entire allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant booked the vehicle as contended in the complaint and subsequently taken delivery of the vehicle after personally inspecting the same and beings fully satisfied with the car.
11. The opposite party denied the allegation that the vehicle was not giving the mileage desired by the complainant and as assured by the opposite party. It is submitted that mileage of car depends upon various factors, such as driving habits, condition of the road, load of the vehicle, tyre pressure etc. It is submitted no two cars would give the same mileage. The complainant / the driver approached the opposite party on 16/12/2019 and thereafter on 27/07/2020 with a complaint that the mileage of the car was very low. The service personal in the work shop of the opposite party had examined the car thoroughly and found the mileage as satisfactory. Accordingly the complainant had been informed of the same and further advised of correcting the driving habit so as to be able to obtain the desired mileage. The complainant being apprised of the said aspect had been duly convinced of the same and taken delivery of the car on both the occasions expressing full satisfaction with the car and the work done. The complainant once again brought the car to the workshop of the opposite party on 07/11/2020 with a complaint of low mileage in addition to a few other complaints. The service personal in the workshop of the opposite party on checking the car noticed that there was no abnormality with the mileage of the car as alleged. Accordingly they had duly apprised the complainant of this aspect and in order to prove the same offered to conduct a joint mileage test. The complainant for reasons best known to them refused to accept the said offer made by the service personal of the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant have not brought the car to the workshop of the opposite party with any complaint pertaining to the mileage of the car.
12. It is submitted that the complainant raised a complaint that his car was jerking while reversing the same, the service personal in the work shop of the opposite party had inspected the car and based on the recommendation from the manufacturer replaced the clutch kit and fly wheel with an updated part, free of cost whereby the alleged grievance raised by the complainant had been redressed to the satisfaction of complainant. It is further submitted that various other complaints alleged to be existing in the car were on inspection by the service personal found to be non- existing or minor complaints which had been duly attended to under warranty.
13. The submission of the opposite party is that during the period of warranty for the car the opposite party has provided all necessary assistance to the complainant. The complainant was never been charged for any repairs / service during the period of warranty other than for consumables and wear tear. The submission of the opposite party is that the averments in the complaint itself is defective and the complainant could not establish any deficiency on the side of the second opposite party. The complainant is not entitled either in law or on facts to seek repayment of the car manufactured by the first opposite party.
14. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A4 and the commission report marked as Ext. C1.
15. The first opposite party filed affidavit and document and the document marked as Ext. B1. Since the second opposite party did not file affidavit, set exparte. Ext. A1 is copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 55AB 4911. Ext. A2 is copy of tax invoice dated 07/11/2020. Ext. A3 is copy of photographs of the vehicle regarding the advertisement in the YouTube / RNOTE triber RXZ /BS6/7seata / top variant / mileage 20.2kmpl dated 06/08/2020. Ext. A4 is copy of insurance policy for the period 14/10/2019 to 13/10/2020 and the policy No. 993191923740004235. Ext. B1 is copy of service history of the vehicle No. KL 55 AB 4911.Commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C1 and the commissioner was examined as PW1.The complainant and opposite parties filed argument note.
16. Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the vehicle has got manufacturing defect?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
17. Point No.1 to 3
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle impressed by the advertisement issued by the first opposite party that the vehicle is with 20 kilometres mileage but he could realize the vehicle has got only below 12 kilometres mileage and also noted various complaints to the vehicle within short span of time he was compelled to replace clutch disc and fly wheel. Moreover the sensor of the vehicle became defective more than once on the way. Hence the complainant alleged manufacturing defect to the vehicle and produced Ext. A1 to A4 to prove his case. The complainant also availed an expert commission to examine the defects of vehicle and the report of the commissioner marked as Ext. C1. On the other hand the opposite parties totally denied the allegations of manufacturing defect of the vehicle and submitted that the complainant is not entitled any relief as claimed by the complainant.
18. The first opposite party filed detailed version contenting that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and first opposite party and so there is no liability towards the complainant. The first opposite party submitted in the version that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the second opposite party on 16/10/2019 and thereafter the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre of the second opposite party on 16/12/2019 itself alleging mileage issue. According to the first of opposite party the technicians of the second opposite party duly under took the inspection with respect to the issue and the technicians of the second opposite party on inspection found the vehicle is working without any defect as alleged by the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle was brought the second opposite party on 27/07/2020 with the complaint of engine fault warning, warning lamp glow, key battery low, less fuel economy and less AC cooling etc. Then also the technicians of the second opposite party duly attended the vehicle. On 07/11/2020 the vehicle was brought before the second opposite party as part of second free service and the same was duly undertaken to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle again brought to the service centre of the second opposite party on 19/12/2020 with the issue of rear AC blower, clutch pedal, noise while the vehicle is in reverse gear. Then also technicians of the second opposite party attended the vehicle and the clutch kit and fly wheel of the vehicle had been replaced to resolve the issue with respect to the abnormal noise while the vehicle is in reverse gear. The air-conditioned blower assemble was also rectified to cater to the issue with respect to air-conditioning system of the vehicle. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 vehicle history but the vehicle history does not reveal the allegations in the version i.e the complainant refused to undertake the joint inspection of the vehicle. At the same time it can be seen that the vehicle was taken to the service centre intermittently for various reasons availing service to the vehicle and taking the vehicle to the service centre as part of repair works is an indication of defects to the vehicle.
19. The complainant took out an expert commission to examine the vehicle condition and also the allegation of manufacturing defect. Mr. Sakeer K.P, Lecturer in automobile, SSM polytechnic, Tirur examined the vehicle in presence of both parties. The commissioner reported that the vehicle is a 7 seater and while he was taking test drive 3 persons were available in the vehicle and the air-conditioner was not working during the examination period. As per his assessment the vehicle has got milage of 16.29 kilometres per litter. The expert commissioner further reported that as per the service history of the vehicle the vehicle has got manufacturing defect to the engine crank shaft alignment. The commissioner reported that the clutch assembly as well as fly wheel was replaced while the vehicle covered 8262 kilometres and also crossing 19948 kilometres. As per the assessment of the expert the same is happened due to the defect to the engine crank shaft. The commissioner submitted that normally clutch of the vehicle causes defects only after crossing more than 45,000/- kilometres, for rectification of the same shifting of friction plate is sufficient. The requirement to clutch assembly replacement along with fly wheel is not a positive signal with respect to the condition of the vehicle. The service history further reveals the main rely of the vehicle has been replaced twice. The conclusion of the expert is that 4358 കിലോമീറ്ററില് ഒരു തവണ മെയിന് റിലേ മാറ്റുകയും 14359 കിലോമീറ്ററില് വാഹനം മെയിന് റിലേ തകരാറ് മൂലം വഴിയില് നിന്നതായും മനസ്സിലാവുന്നു. So the expert commission report reveals that the vehicle has got manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint.
20. In this complaint, complainant prayed for replacement of the vehicle or refunding the cost of vehicle along with compensation and cost.
21. It can be seen that the complainant filed this complaint in the year 2021 March 3rd. The complainant had approached this Commission for appointment of an expert commissioner to assess the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. But the vehicle number was not properly pleaded in the complaint and so there was substantial delay caused for the execution of commission warrant. Hence the complainant caused dragging of this complaint for a long period. Even after completing the five years the complainant prayed for the replacement or refunding of the value of vehicle. But it can be seen that the complainant was in use of the vehicle for the entire period. The complainant has not produced any document to show the present condition of the vehicle. So it cannot be allowed the prayer of the complainant as such. The complainant has not raised any allegation against the second opposite party regarding service. The allegation of the complainant is manufacturing defect to the vehicle for which the first opposite e party alone is responsible. The Commissioner reported that the vehicle has got nearly 16.29 kilometres mileage. The allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle has got only 12 kilometres mileage. But the document produced by the complainant shows that the opposite party issued advertisement calming 20 kilometres per litter for the vehicle. The opposite parties did not deny the allegation of the complainant. But the contention is that availability of mileage depends upon various factors. But it is to be understand that the complainant purchased the vehicle seeing the advertisement of the vehicle and to use the various conditions prevailed at the time of use of the vehicle. So the contention of the opposite parties for not availing the mileage as assured cannot be justified. Hence we find that the vehicle has got manufacturing defect and issuing advertisement which is not able to full fill amounts unfair trade practice. Hence the commission find that the act of opposite parties as unfair trade practice. The complainant within one month of purchase approached the second opposite party with the complaint of non-availing assured mileage for the vehicle. But the opposite party assured that the same will be available after the service. But subsequently the opposite party could not avail the assured mileage for the vehicle and so there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It can be seen that the allegation of the complainant is being manufacturing defect the first opposite party is responsible to redress the grievance of the complainant.
22. It is already stated above that the complainant purchased the vehicle in the year 2019 and after filing this complaint due to lapse on the side of complaint, caused dragging of the matter even without providing correct vehicle number. So the commission do not find reason to allow the prayer to replace or refund the cost of the vehicle, at the same time the commission finds that the complainant is entitled a reasonable amount as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is certain that due to shortage of mileage against assurance and other defects revealed as per vehicle history might have caused inconvenience, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. Hence the commission allow Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against the first opposite party, the manufacturer of the vehicle. The complainant also entitled cost of Rs.10,000/-.
23. In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint against first opposite party as follows: -
- The first opposite party is directed to pay compensation of RS.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only ) to the complainant on account of manufacturing defect to the vehicle and thereby caused inconvenience hardship and financial loss sustained to the complainant
- The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 9% interest per annum for the above said amount from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 27th day of February, 2024.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1
PW1: Sakeer .K.P (Lecturer in Automobile Engineering S.S.M.P.T.C, Tirur)
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 55AB 4911.
Ext.A2: Copy of tax invoice dated 07/11/2020.
Ext A3: Copy of photographs of the vehicle regarding the advertisement in the
YouTube / RNOTE triber RXZ /BS6/7seata / top variant / mileage 20.2kmpl
dated 06/08/2020.
Ext A4: Copy of insurance policy for the period 14/10/2019 to 13/10/2020 and the
policy No. 993191923740004235.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: DW1 and DW2
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1
Ext.B1: Copy of service history of the vehicle No. KL 55 AB 4911.
Ext. C1: Commission report
Mohandasan. K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
