Punjab

Patiala

CC/18/92

Sukhveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renault India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.A.S Dhaliwal

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 92/2018
Date of Institution	:	13.3.2018
Date of Decision	:	3.4.2023

 

Sukhveer Singh aged about 32 years, son of Sh.Tarsem Singh, resident of House No.997,  Adarsh Colony, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...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 Chairman/Directors/Managing Director.

 

2. Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., Patkala (earlier known as Padam Motors Ltd.) village Chamarheri, Rajpura road, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.A.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.K.K.Jain, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Sh.Ajay Chaudhary, counsel for OP No.2.

         

                              

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Sukhveer Singh  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Renault India Private Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That complainant purchased a car make Renault Duster on 12.3.2015, for a sum of Rs.12,45,000/-, from OP No.2(earlier known as Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd.) being authorized dealer of OP No.1.At the time ofselling of the said car, it was promised by OPs that car shall give best performance and OPs shall be liable/responsible for any defect therein.

That since the day of purchase of said car, the same has given immense problems one after another. The left pulling started on the same day i.e. on the delivery of car to complainant. Even no PDI (Pre-delivery inspection) was done, rather odometer was showing warning light at that time. Complainant informed about the same to OP No.2 but its officials did not respond properly. On very second day said problem was fixed by unjacking all the jacks of car.Complainant felt humiliated and embarrassed as the new car on the very first and second day has demanded repair. Not only this, wiper assembly switch fitted under steering got free, loose and noisy which was changed by OP in warranty. The stereo remote of car was also got malfunctioning, which wasreplaced by OP No.2. After few days there arose many issues and problem of hardness in steering and left pulling of car got worse and steering got stiff and OP No.2 failed to rectify the said manufacturing defect.

After 10,000 KM, one shocker of car got leaked and other shocker was also got impacted and found faulty and new shockers provided by OP No.2 again got noisy and faulty after 30,000 KMs run. All of these defects show that car sold to the complainant by OPs is full of defects and is old one. Time and again steering was changed by OP No.2 but the problems did not resolve. Not only this, both the tyres especially left rear tyre of car is damaging/harming the tyre from inside. Complainant reported and complained the matter to OPs but they did not pay any heed. Complainant so many times requested OPs for the replacement of car with new one or to refund the cost of the car paid by him but the OPs delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs on 28.12.2017 in this regard but no heed was paid by them. Complainant also sent number of e-mails to OPs and requested time and again to set right the car but OPs sent evasive replies and nothing has been done. Thus the OPs have indulged in malpractice and unfair trade practice. There is also deficiency in service on the part of OPs.Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements having contested the complaint.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it raised certain preliminary objections. It is pleaded that OP No.1 is in no manner responsible for the sale, repairs and services of the vehicle, as the same has been carried out by OP No.2 and dealer is liable to carry out the repair and services of the vehicle through the service centers.Further OP No.1 has not received any payment from the complainant.
5. On merits, it is alleged that the said car had some issues on the steering electronic assembly and electric circuit of the dash board and the same has been addressed by OP No.2. It is alleged that if the complainant has serious manufacting issues as alleged by him, he cannot use the vehicle for 3 long years without any risk and danger.After denying all other averments, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
6. In the reply filed by OP No.2 it also raised certain preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted that disputed vehicle was sold by OP No.2 as per the assurance, warranty and other terms and conditions laid and settled by OP No.1. It is averred that as and when complainant approached OP No.2 regarding any problem in the vehicle, the same was fixed immediately to the satisfaction of the complainant. Also as  per the guidelines laid by OP No.1, complainant is bound to get the vehicle inspected and serviced and replace the parts as per the schedule given in the service book failing which the warranty of sold vehicle lapses automatically.After denying all other averments, OP No.2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. In evidence, ld. counsel for complainant furnished Ex.CA affidavit of complainant,Ex.CB affidavit of Sandeep Singh, Proprietor alongwith documents,Exs.C1 copy of RC, Exs.C2 to C6, copies of legal notice and postal receipts,Ex.C7 to C38, copies of emails,Ex.C39 copy of email,Ex.C40 copy of bill of car,Ex.C41 quotation, Ex.C42 copy of email,Ex.C43 wheel alignment report and closed evidence.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence,Ex.OPA affidavit of MS Abha Tiwari, Sr.Legal Manager of Renault India Pvt. Ltd alongwith document,Ex.OP1 copy of dealership agreement between OPs No.1&2 and closed evidence.
9. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence,Ex.OPB affidavit of Neeraj Bansal, Manager of Bench Mark Motors alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 copies of emails by complainant,Ex.OP6 copy of appreciation letter by the complainant and closed evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the  record of case, carefully.
11. The complainant had purchased a car make Renault Duster on 12.3.2015, for a consideration of Rs.12,45,000/- from OP No.2. (Ex.C40). Copy of registration of said vehicle is Ex.C1.\
12. The complainant has alleged that the car in question was pulling to the left side right from day one. This fact was brought to the notice of OPs at the time of delivery as the odometer of the car was showing warning light but no action was taken by the OPs. the complainant has also alleged that there was other issues like the switch of the wiper assembly under the steering was free, the shockers of the car  leaked and steering wheel of the car was replaced twice by the OPs but the problem of pulling of car to the left side continued. The matter was brought to the notice of OPs repeatedly vide emails,Exs.C6,C8,C10 to C14, C16,C17,C19,C20,C22,C23,C24,C25,C26,C28 and Exs.C30 to C34. The complainant has also served legal notices,Ex.C2 and C4 to the OPs on 28.12.2017  but no fruitful purpose was served.Complainant has now prayed for replacement of the car with new one or refund of the price of car alongwith compensation.
13. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that OP No.2 is merely the manufacturer of the vehicle and has nothing to do the repair and service of vehicle for which OP No.2 is responsible. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case titled as Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Nagendra Prasad Sinha and others  in Revision Petition No.674,676 and 677 of 2004, wherein it  has been held that the manufacturer is not liable/responsible for the acts done by the dealer and as such OP No.1 is not responsible for repair and services rendered by OP No.2.
14. Ld. counsel  for OP No.2 has argued that whenever the complainant approached for any problem in the car same was duly attended to the satisfaction of the complainant for which a satisfactory note has been given by the complainant himself and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No.2 has also placed on record service history of the vehicle, on going through it, it is observed that only major defect pointed out by the complainant is regarding the hardness of the steering and pulling of the car to left side. The other minor defects were duly attended by OP No.2 and even the steering was replaced by OP No.1 but the problem of the steering was not resolved.
15. We have carefully examined the documents and the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties.
16. The vehicle was procured by the complainant in the year 2015 i.e. eight years ago. The complaint was then filed by the complainant on 13.3.2018 i.e. after three years of the purchase of vehicle. The only problem/ issue involved in the vehicle is regarding hardness of the steering and pulling of the vehicle to the left side. No other major issue regarding  engine or gear etc. is involved and has been disputed. The pulling of the vehicle to left side may be due to non-alignment of the vehicle or some flaws in body of the vehicle. However, any defect in the body of the vehicle could not be conclusively proved by the complainant. No expert has been examined by the complainant to prove the fact that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the complaint of hardness in the steering is definitely provided from the service history as has been produced by the OPs.
17. In view of the discussion above, complaint is partly allowed and we direct the OPs to repair the vehicle of the complainant immediately, to his satisfaction, free of cost, under the guidance of their experts, as and when the complainant brings his vehicle for the same and in case of delay after 60 days of parking the vehicle for repair,  OPs shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of parking the vehicle for repair till realization.            
18.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President