Piyush Gupta son of Sh.Vimal Gupta, resident of House No.315, Sector 19, Part II, HUDA, Kaithal.

….. Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (RIPL), Head Office ASV2.     Renault Showroom, Delhi Auto Tech Private Limited,

3.     PMG Auto Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Phase-1, Plot

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  

Argued by:

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

2.            was handed over to Opposite Party No.3, on two more occasions, but the problems were not resolved. The complainant got frustrated. He then handed over the said car, to the Service Centre of Opposite Party No.2, the same being nearest to his residence. Opposite Party No.2 kept the car of the complainant and thereafter deliver the same to him, telling that the same was fine, and it would not create any problem, in future. However, the car was not fine. The complainant made a complaint, at toll free Customer Care No.180030044444, of the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the car was checked thoroughly. The complainant was told that some parts of the car were to be changed, which were not readily available. The complainant was asked to wait for 15 days, for the requisite parts.

3.           

1.               A/C condenser damage

2.               Radiators fans swart

3.               Gear lever cables lock missing and

4.               Radiator fan swart mount missing

The photographs of the damaged car are Annexure C-1 (Colly.). It was stated that after charging a huge amount from the complainant, the Opposite Parties had ran away from their obligations. It was further stated that the amount of Rs.3,63,164/-, was illegally charged by Opposite Party No.3.

4.            

5.           

6.           rd

7.           

8.           

9.            

10.        

11.         

12.        

13.        

14.        However, in para No.2 (ii) of the complaint, it was mentioned by the complainant, that it was, around November, 2012, that his car met with an accident. The complainant himself was not at all sure, as to when his car met with an accident. As is evident from AnnexureRs.3,63,164/-,was raised. The complainant, however, concealed the fact, that the repair of car, in question, was done under insurance. He also did not state, even a single word, in his complaint, as to how much amount was reimbursed to him, by the Insurance Company, on account of loss caused to the car, in question, in the said accident. The complainant failed to produce, on record, the job card of the repairs done, in respect of the said car. No document was also produced by the complainant, that he was not satisfied with the repairs, which were carried out by Opposite Party No.3, when the car was taken to its workshop.Rs.3,63,164/-,for repairs of the accidental damaged car, and replacing parts thereof. Since, no cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the complainant, to the effect that the car was not properly repaired by Opposite Party No.3, it could not be said that it was deficient, in rendering service, and indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding so.

15.        Coming to the liability of Opposite Party No.2,  

a).     Chu chu noise from brakes

b).     All door noise on rough road

c).     Horn not working

d).     Steering rhs cutting hard

e).     Suspension noise

f).     Wiper blades vibrate when operate

16.