Delhi

East Delhi

CC/27/2015

SANJEEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENAULT INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 27/15

 

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Chamber no. 159

Patiala House Courts

New Delhi – 110 001                                                ….Complainant

Vs.    

1. M/s. Renault India

Through its Managing Director

Reg. Off.: North Suit No. 11

Vatika Business Centre

2^nd Floor, Vatika Triangle, Sushant Lok-I

Phase-I, Block-A, M.G. Road

Gurgaon – 110 002

2. M/s. Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Director

At: 77, F.I.E.

Patparganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092

3. M/s. Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd.

B-40, Plot No. 70, najafgarh Road

Moti Nagar

Also at:

16, Rama Road, New Delhi – 110 015                     …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 13.01.2015

Judgement Reserved on: 29.01.2019

Judgement Passed on: 05.02.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta against M/s. Renault India (OP-1), M/s. Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant purchased one Duster Car, Renault, bearing no. DL-13C-5286 vide retail invoice no. VSLA 12000511 dated 09.01.2013 from M/s. Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2). 

            It was stated that there was defect in the clutch of the car which was disclosed to OP-2 (authorized service centre of OP-1) at the time of service.  The said defect was duly noted down in all the job sheets, prepared on all the three services, but no efforts were made to rectify the same. 

            On 12.09.2014, the complainant gave his car for service to           M/s. Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) with the complaint of the problem in the clutch.   OP-3 noted down the clutch problem in the job sheet and assured the complainant that they will return the car by removing the said defect within a period of three days, but instead of returning the car, OP-3 asked for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- as bill for the services.   Having no other option, the complainant had to pay Rs. 78,525/- being the bill amount, as demanded by OP-3. 

            It was further stated that the complainant made complaints regarding the problem in clutch with OP-2 every time, but the vehicle was returned without removing the defect.  The complainant was complaining about the defects in clutch since the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, but  OP-2 deliberately extended time in order to get the warranty period expired.

            It was also stated that the complaint made a complaint with          OP-1 regarding the malpractice being adopted by OP-2 and OP-3 vide reference ID-4-00143808, but no action has been taken till date.  The complainant has stated that all the OPs were liable to pay the bill amount to the complainant and also to compensate the complainant for deficiency in services.   Hence, he has prayed for directions to OPs to release the bill amount of Rs. 78,725/- alongwith 18% interest; Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in services, mental pain & agony, harassment  and cost of litigation and Rs. 20,000/- for adopting unfair trade practices.   .        

3.         Reply filed on behalf of OP-1 in which they have taken various pleas such as the complaint was time barred and therefore not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased on 09.01.2013 and complaint was filed on 13.01.2015; the estimate of repairs was conveyed to the complainant and latter called upon to express his consent to replacement of affected parts under cost which he did  and repairs undertaken; if there was manufacturing defect, it did not allow the vehicle to run 49681 odd kilometres over 20 months from the date of purchase and the clutch plate was a wearable component and/or consumable and not warranty treatable.  Other facts have also been denied.

In the reply, OP-3 have stated that no averment had been made in the complaint against them. There was no deficiency in service on their part.  

4.        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP-1, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas. 
5. n support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on oath.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.    He has got exhibited documents such as copy of  invoice dated 09.01.2013 and copy of delivery receipt dated 11.01.2013       (Ex.CW-1/1 & 1/2), copy of bill dated 21.09.2014 for Rs. 78,524/-      (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of complaint via email dated 20.09.2014 (Ex. CW-1/4), copy of legal notice dated 20.10.2014 and proof of service (Ex. CW-1/5 & 1/6) and copy of complaint (Ex. CW-1/7).

In defence, OP-1 have examined Shri Galametz Axel, Chief Financial Officer in M/s. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. (OP-1). He has deposed on affidavit and narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.

OP-3 have examined Shri Lucky Singh, who have also deposed on affidavit.He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement.

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for M/s. Renault India (OP-1), M/s. Avia Auto Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) and M/s. Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) and have perused the material placed on record, however, the complainant have not appeared to argue. During the course of arguments, counsel for M/s. Renault India (OP-1) have moved an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it has come to their knowledge that complainant has sold out the vehicle which was subject matter or this complaint.

            The fact that complainant have not been putting the appearance since 25.07.2018, it seems that complainant was not interested in pursuing his complaint.  He may not be pursuing the complaint as he might have sold the vehicle, as stated in the application moved on behalf of     M/s. Renault India (OP-1).

            The fact that complainant have not put the appearance to pursue his complaint, the plea taken in the application moved on behalf of               M/s. Renault India (OP-1) that the complainant have sold of the vehicle which was the subject matter of the complaint, is accepted.  Thus, his complaint does not survive which stands dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

 Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member 

  

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President