Date of filing : 03.04.2018
Date of Judgment: 09.11.2021
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This consumer complaint is filed by the complainant namely Shri Basudeb Ganguly under Section 12 of the C.P Act , 1986 against the opposite parties ( referred to as O.Ps hereinafter) namely 1) Renault India Private Limited, 2) Bagaria Motors Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Case of the complainant , in short, is that he purchased a vehicle of Renault company on 27.06.2017 from the showroom of O.P-2 being described as KWID RxT Petrol 1.0 Lt. K1E3MT1L at a cost of Rs.4, 50,944/-. But immediately after purchase of the vehicle the problems started arising in the vehicle. Complainant was compelled to send the vehicle for check-up on 23.09.2017 due to gear shift lever problem. Again on 9.10.2017 the vehicle was sent due to complain of inconsistent blowing of horn, gear locking and break noise. Within 6 months of the purchase complainant was compelled to send the vehicle to the service centre 4 times for rectification and/or changing of crucial car parts including the brake pads and battery. On 20.11.2017 when the vehicle was sent to the workshop with the concern related to break noise and persistent issue of noise from the rear , after the service, complainant was assured by the O.Ps that the car was roadworthy. But when he had taken the car to Durgapur it broke down severely while returning. On 7.12.2017 O.Ps accepted the fact that the battery of the car was defective and needed replacement . But inspite of replacement complainant has been facing the problems of noise from the rear side of the car. So, ultimately complainant moved before the Consumer Grievance Cell and thereafter the present complaint has been filed praying for directing the O.Ps to replace the current vehicle with a new vehicle of same specification , to grant refund of Rs.4,50,944/-, to grant refund of Rs.25000/- as cost of repair, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.25000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant has annexed with the complaint the Invoice dated 27.6.2017 regarding purchase of the vehicle, the documents issued by the Service Centre dated 23.9.2017 relating to general check-up of the vehicle of gear shift lever, the e-mails exchanged between the parties including repair order dated 9.10.2017 and 29.10.2017.
O.P-1 has contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing the allegations contending inter alia that O.P-1 has authorised the O.P-2 to sell the cars manufactured by O.P-1 and once the car reaches the showroom of the dealers , it is the duty of the O.P-2 to provide service to the customers with relation to buying of a car. The relationship between the O.P-1 and O.P-2 is as a principal to principal relationship and the dealer is not an agent of the O.P-1. All the concerns of the complainant were properly diagnosed and the parts were duly replaced to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further contended that the complainant was requested for joint road inspection but the complainant did not feel any need to visit the workshop of the O.P-2 to participate in the joint road inspection , as he was fully satisfied with the services. So, O.P-1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P-2 has also contested the case by filing written version disputing and denying the allegations containing inter alia that it is just a dealer who sells the car of the O.p-1 and thus O.P-2 cannot be liable. Whenever, the complainant faced any problem and the car was taken to the workshop, the job was done to the satisfaction of the complainant in the workshop of the O.P-2. So, there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-2 and as such O.p-2 has also prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of the trial both parties file their respective affidavit-in-chief followed by filing questionnaire and reply thereto and ultimately written notes of arguments have also been filed by O.P-1 and complainant.
It is submitted in the written argument filed by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that within a period of six months of the purchase of the vehicle, it had to be sent to the workshop of the opposite parties for more than four times for rectification and/or changing of crucial car parts of the vehicle including brake pads and battery. It is further argued that opposite party no.1 in its affidavit of examination in-chief shifted the blame to opposite party no.2 which is an admission of deficiency of service in the product.
On the other hand opposite no.1 has argued that the relationship between O.P-1/company with the O.P no.2/dealer is principal to principal relationship and the dealer is not an agent of O.P no.1. It is further submitted that the complainant has admitted that in all cases the parts were replaced with a new one under warranty whenever the vehicle was taken by the complainant to the workshop. Complainant has filed this case praying for directing the O.P to replace the current vehicle with a new vehicle but no document has been filed by the complainant to show that the vehicle suffers from the manufacturing defects. No expert evidence is filed. In support of such contention, O.P no.1 has relied upon the following decision:-
- Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N Prasad
- Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.
- Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr.
No written argument is filed by the O.P-2 .
So, following points require to be determined:-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken-up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
In support of his claim that he purchased the vehicle from the showroom of O.P no.2 being KWID RXT Petrol 1.0 Lt. KIE3MTIL and that since immediately after purchase of the vehicle, it started giving problems and had to be sent to the workshop many times, complainant has filed the invoice dated 27.06.2017 issued by the O.P no.2 , the invoice dated 23.9.2017 stating about the general check-up of gear shifter Lever , repair order dt. 09.10.2017 and all the E-mails exchanged between the parties.
On perusal of these documents, it appears that on 23.9.2017 vehicle was checked in the service centre due to complain of gear shift lever problems, on 9.10.2017 vehicle was again sent with the complaint of three major issues namely inconsistent blowing of horn gear breaking and break noise, then vehicle was again sent on 29.10.2017 when change of some parts were done by the workshop, on 20.11.2017 the vehicle was sent again with the concern of break noise and noise from the rear when brake pad was only replaced. It further appears from the e-mail dated 05.12.2017 that the complainant informed the opposite parties that the car broke down and so car was again sent to the workshop when battery was replaced. So, apparently within 6 months of the purchase 04 times vehicle had to be sent to the workshop.
All these complaints by the complainant about visit of the vehicle 4 times and replacement of the parts have been admitted by the opposite parties. However, question requires consideration is whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle to replace it as prayed by the complainant? The replacement of the parts done or observed in the documents relied upon by the complainant can at all be categorised as manufacturing defect? In case of Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. , it has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was upon the complainant and further it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect.
In this case there is absolutely no document filed by the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Complainant did not take any step for obtaining any expert’s opinion. Even though complainant has claimed that even after changing the battery, the complainant still faced the problem of noise from the rear side of the vehicle and complainant has been compelled to drive the car with noise in various sections. But on perusal of the E-mail dated 21.11.2017 sent by O.P’s Customer Care it appears that it has been categorically stated “We would like to inform you that we have received your vehicle on 20.11.2017 with the concern of brake pad noise and rear noise from the vehicle. As per the diagnosis we have found brake noise and replaced the brake pad with the modified one. The satisfactory result is observed after thorough road test. However at the same time we have not observed any noise from rear side of the car or dickey.
We certify that the vehicle is now roadworthy condition and ready to get delivered. However, we would like to request you to visit our workshop for a joint road test tomorrow as per your convenient time, to complaint necessary repair work as well as to allow us to get clarified with respect of the concern shared by you on rear noise.
Please confirm us your visit to the workshop”.
So, to know the concern of the complainant about the rear noise, O.Ps asked for a joint road test but admittedly complainant did not go for the joint road test drive. A specific question has been put to the complainant by the O.P-1/company in the questionnaire filed by them that “Is it not correct that you avoided the repeated request of opposite party no.2 for a joint road test to specify your concern? Say yes or no.
In reply, complainant has only stated “No, such allegation is false and baseless”.
Complainant has not stated anywhere that he informed to the O.Ps that he was ready with the joint road test. No document/e-mail has been filed in this regard. So, it is true that within six months of the purchase of vehicle four times vehicle was taken to the workshop for removing one or other defect but in the absence of any specific evidence, it cannot be accepted that there is manufacturing defect which cannot be removed. In the given facts and situation of this case, interest of the complainant can be protected, if he is provided a vehicle which is free from defects from all angles and thus it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to jointly make an endeavour to remove the defects in the vehicle in question and give a clear-cut certificate signed by a senior-officer of the O.P-1 ,declaring that the vehicle is free from all defects. For the mental agony and harassment faced by the complainant, he is also entitled to compensation. In our view an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.12000/- will be justified.
Hence,
ORDERED
that CC/168/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite parties are jointly directed to remove the defects from all angels in the subject vehicle being KWID RXT Petrol 1.0 Lt KIE3 MIL specified in invoice dated 27.06.2017, within two months from this date and give a certificate signed by a senior officer (not below the rank of a General Manager) of O.P no.1 ,declaring that the vehicle is free from all defects. They are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.12000/- within the aforesaid period of two months.
