D.O.F:12/08/2016

D.O.O:18/06/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.220/2016

Dated this, the 18^th  day of June 2020

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Abdulkhader, aged 54 years

S/o Kunhammed

R/at. Shelter Avenue,

Naimarmoola, Vidyanagar Post

Kasaragod Taluk                                                                              :Complainant

(Adv: A. Balakrishnan Nair & C. Krishna Kumar)

And

1. RENAULT KANNUR

T.V Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd,

Building No: 3/12 – D,E

Near Govt. Poly Technic,

Thottada, Kannur -670007

2. The Chairman & Managing director, Renault                :Opposite Parties

India Pvt Ltd, A.S.V Ramana Towers,

37+38, 4^th  Floor, Venkata Narayana Road,

T. Nagar , Chennai

(Adv: A.N. Ashok Kumar)  

                                                                        ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

                        Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act :-

            Facts of the case in brief as following:-

            The grievance of complainant is that he booked a Renault Duster Diesel vehicle with Opposite Party being the dealer of Opposite Party No:2 vehicle is shown to him on 01/01/2016.  But on inspection he found scratches on its bonnet and top of vehicle, problem in opening the door and starting problem.

            Though complainant was not willing to accept the vehicle, he was compelled to buy it because Opposite Party refused to refund its price already credited to their account. The defects of the vehicle still continued, he could not enjoy travel but sustained financial loss, mental tension.  Hence he filed the complainant claiming replacement of vehicle with a new one or refund its price of Rs. 10,27,000/- and to pay compensation and cost of litigation.

            Opposite Party filed written version allegation in the version is that complainant is not a consumer and it is not maintainable at law vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect any deficiency service.  He got a huge discount of Rs. 1,21,000/-,he selected the model vehicle noting the scratches in painting on the bonnet.  The complainant brought the vehicle for service on 22/01/2016 and on 26/04/2016 for periodical service.  He got it back service with full satisfaction.  There is no deficiency service or un fair trade practice.  Opposite Party also says manufacturer is not a party in the matter of replacement and prayed from dismissal of complaint.

            Opposite Party No:2 is impleaded, who filed its version.  Opposite Party No:2 denied having any defect to the vehicle but claimed such a prestigious, car which bagged awards including car of the year and SUV of the year.  Complainant got such a heavy discount of Rs.1,21,000/-, vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect and consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Complainant filed chief affidavit and he was cross examined as PW1. He produced documents and marked as Ext A1 to A4 Ext A1 is the copy of invoice, Ext A2 letter by Opposite Party to complainant. Ext A3 booking bill and Ext A4 is owner’s manual.

            In view of the above dispute following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the vehicles suffer any manufacturing defect? And if so whether complainant is entitled for its replacement or refund of its price paid to the company.
2. Whether there is any unfair trade practice and deficincy in service?
3. Whether complainant entitled for compensation and if so for what reliefs?

Answer to point (a)

      Specific case of the complainant that the vehicle that he was compelled to purchase is having defects. But Opposite Party not considered the grievance.  Opposite Party denies it.  Though complainant say that vehicle suffers manufacturing defects; he has no specific case which part of the vehicle has manufacturing defect.  Further no steps taken to appoint an expert to inspect the vehicle and to see that it has any defect.  So point No:1 found against complainant holding that there is no manufacturing defect.

      Complainant availed free service to the vehicle on 22/01/2016 and 21/04/2016.  He did not raise any objection relating to manufacturing defect or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service neither sent a notice to the dealer or company.   It really complainant has got such a case he would have brought this fact to the attention of Opposite Party at least while servicing twice.  But complaint is filed on 12/08/2016 after eight months of delivery.  He admits in evidence he is plying the vehicle as usual, that is from 01/01/2016 till date of more than three years.  Further he got a discount Rs. 1,21,000/- vehicle is delivered and delivery is accepted noting scratches in painting on bonnet etc shown in Ext A3.

      The complainant is made unsupported allegation regarding manufacturing defects in the vehicle without providing any expert opinion to substantiate the same.  The complainant is neither having any manufacturing defects and more than has the complainant take any expert opinion support his allegations of manufacturing defect.  The claim of complainant cannot bead judicated up on in the absence of an expert opinion and unless an automobile and unless an automotive expert certifies that the vehicle of the complainant indeed suffered from manufacturing defaulter the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

      So far as manufacturing defect is conserned it can be only proved by expert opinion/ report.

      In Mahendra Kumar Vs Hero Honda Motor limited, 2017 (3) CPR 35 (NC) Honourable (NC) Honourable National Commission has observed that “all manufacturing defect must be proved by expert evidence”.

      In Ajay Kumar Vs M/s Award Auto mobile and Anr, 2017 (3) CPR 259(NC) Honourable National Commission has observed that “allegation of manufacturing defect  must be proved by logent evidence”.

      In Tata Motor Ltd Vs Asis Aggarval, 2017 NCJ 347 (NC), Honourable National Commission, has observed that “question as to whether there was or was not any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question could not have been decided by the allegations and counter allegation and it  could have been answered by the expert opinion only”.

      In Tata Engg and Locomotive Co Ltd and Anr Vs Nirabhai Purohit  III 2017 CPJ 468(NC) Honourable National Commission observed same view:-

      On the basis of entirety and foregoing discussion, we are of the view that there is no iota of evidence that there was manufacturing defect and needs any replacement of the instant vehicle. 

Point No: (b) and (c) :-

      Section 2 1(g) of the CP Act 1986 defines deficiency.  According to this definition, any faculty, short comings, inadequacy, and imperfection in the quantity, nature or manner of performance of the service is a deficiency.  This standered has to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force.  In the present case, complainant has not established any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by legal and acceptable evidence to the satisfaction to the consumer Fora.

      Hence, relying upon the precedents of Honourable Supreme Court and the National Commission, CDRF hereby dismiss the complaint but without costs.

Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1-  copy of invoice

A2-  A letter dated 01/01/2016

A3-  Booking bill

A4- Owners Manual

Witness Examined

Pw1. Abdulkader

       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/