SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant had been to the showroom of OP-1 Renault Kolkata Central, a Unit of Vibrant Motors Private Limited for purchase of a Renault Lodgy car and the price of the said car was Rs.14,00,000/- which is too much excessive and the complainant requested the Sales Executive of OP-1 that he is looking a Renault Car within the budget of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Sales Executive of the OP-1 assured that he will get Renault Lodgy Car in new condition and such car had been run about 361 Kms for PDI test. Being satisfied with the information, complainant has booked a Renault Lodgy Car on 12.06.2017 against payment of Rs.4,500/- and also filled in an Order Booking Form regarding the particulars of the said car and its price including Bumper to Bumper Insurance handling charges, five years Road Tax and Registration charges. The Sales Executive and the complainant put their respective signatures in the Booking Form.
Further case of the complainant is that on 30.06.2017 the official of OP-1 prepared a Tax Invoice showing particulars of the Renault Lodgy 110 PS DCI RXZ AC TAPE BS IV including its Price + Vat. The total price of the Renault Lodgy Car is Rs.7,89,014/-. The Office staff of OP-1 has also prepared three Debit Notes regarding Handling Charge, Warranty of Air Condition and Registration charges. Complainant obtained car loan from the State Bank of India, Maniktala Branch and the Bank paid the entire amount to the OP-1. In spite of payment of entire cost of the car the OP-1 did not take any initiative to handover the car. Ultimately, the Sales Executive of OP-1 called the complainant to their workshop, complainant dissatisfied about the subject car and suspected that it is a used car. The Sales Executive assured the complainant that they will ready the car in showroom condition. Finally, on 14.07.2017 the OP-1 requested the complainant to receive the car but the complainant noticed it from the meter reading that the car has already run 28,834 Kms. Complainant refused to accept the car but ultimately on 24.07.2017 compelled to receive the car as the Bank has already debited EMI from his Bank Account. The OP-1 had entered in to a Memorandum of Understanding with the complainant and according to such MOU the OP-1 is liable to replace all alloy wheels, tyre, clean the engine compartment, panels & headlight, rectify the dent on rear bumper and also fit front and rear bumper guard, fix car sticker etc. Besides that he OP-1 should pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant through RTGS. The OP-1 forgot all of their promise fully mentioned in the MOU. The subject car was brought to the showroom of OP-1 for replacement of wheels tyre etc. but the officials of workshop did not accept the MOU and demanded money.
Finding no other alternative, complainant issued legal notice dated 11.09.2017 to the OPs and the OP-1 accepted the grievance of the complainant with an assurance to solve the problem but ultimately failed to comply the terms & conditions of the MOU. Therefore, such act of the OPs tantamount to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence. Hence, the complaint.
The OP-1 has contested the case by filing Written Version contending inter alia that the consumer complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts. The instant complaint is vexatious, frivolous, harassive and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case. The specific case of the answering OP is that the complainant himself visited the showroom of the answering OP with a view to purchase one Renault Car, Model DCI RXZ AC TYPE BS IV and the price of the car was Rs.14,00,000/-. Complainant expressed that he want to purchase the Renault Car within his budget of Rs.10,00,000/-. That the Complainant choose a Renault Car manufactured in 2015 and plied about 29,000 Kms, lying in the showroom for test drive. Knowing the fact that Rs.4,00,000/-will be given as discount. Complainant voluntarily chooses to book the said car as the subject car was within his budget. Besides that the answering OP executed a MOU dated 24.07.2017 with the complainant where further benefit will be given free of cost and a sum of Rs.25,000/- will be refunded to the complainant. The answering OP paid road tax for life time of the subject car instead of five years and also paid registration charges apart from other benefits. The subject car was delivered to the complainant with good and running condition and benefits were also given to the complainant as per MOU dated 24.07.2017. Refund amount of Rs.25,000/- could not be credited to the Bank Account of the complainant as he failed to provide Bank details. The parties to the consumer complaint are bound to abide the MOU dated 24.07.2017. The complainant is not legally entitled to get any relief as prayed for. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP. Accordingly, the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In spite of service of notice, OP-2 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP-2.
In the light of the above pleadings of the parties the following points necessarily came up for determination.
- Are the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Are the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaires set forth by the adversaries. Both parties have also filed their Brief Notes of Argument. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced before us.
There is no dispute that the OP-1 is the authorized dealer of Renault India Private Limited and have also an authorised service centre. It is also true that the complainant had been to the showroom of OP-1, enquired about features and price of different car manufactured by Renault with an intention to purchase Renaualt Lodgy Car (Model DC 1 RXZ AC TYPE BS IV). The price of the said model car was Rs.14,00,000/- but the complainant expressed his desire to purchase the said model car within the budget of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also undisputed that the representative of OP-1 showed one old Renault Lodgy Car (Manufacturing year 2015) to the complainant which used for demonstration and trial run purpose and the price of the car is within the budget of the complainant. It is also undisputed that the complainant booked the subject car on12.05.2017 by depositing Rs.4,500/-. The price of the subject car was Rs.7,89,014/- including VAT, also it appears from the Tax Invoice. OP-1 has also received Rs.1,45,893/- as handling charges, warranty of A/c and Registration charges against Debit Notes all dated 30.06.2017 apartfrom other benefits.
Complainant has alleged that the representative of OP-1 Company assured that the subject car is in showroom condition and had plied 361 Kms for PDI test. Per-contra, the OP-1 has denied such allegation. According to the OP-1, the complainant was fully aware of the fact that the subject car had already plied 29,000 Kms and in spite of that he voluntarily purchased the subject car after obtaining Bank loan. The subject car was delivered to the complainant with his utmost satisfaction. A Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) dated 24.07.2017 was executed between the complainant and the OP-1. The OP-1 had complied with the terms and condition of the MOU.
MOU dated 24.07.2017 itself proved that meter reading of the subject car was 28,834 Km on the date of its delivery to the complainant. In the instant case complainant projected that the subject car had been run 361 Kms on the date of its booking. Complainant failed to produce any document to that aspect that the computer meter reading load record shown the mileage as 361 Kms on the date of booking. Thus, the question of misrepresentation and wrong projection to the complainant that the subject car had covered only 361 Kms.
It is true that in terms of the MOU dated 24.07.2017 the OP-1 is liable to provide the following items in respect of the subject car :
1) Replacement of alloy wheels and tyre,
2) Clearing of engine compartment,
3) Cleaning of panel,
4) Cleaning of head light,
5) Rectification of dent on rear bumper,
6) Front and rear bumper guard fitted,
7) Car sticker fitted,
8) Refunding of Rs.25,000/- to the bank Account of the complainant through RTGS.
The Warranty period is for rest 50,000/- Kms or two years whichever is earlier from the date of execution of the MOU.
The grievance of the complainant is that he had been to the workshop of the OP-1 with the subject car and in spite of having additional warranty for more 50,000/- Kms the officials of the OP-1 Company demanded money which is against the terms and conditions of the MOU. As a result, the subject car became break down. The OP-1 also bypasses their liabilities. On the other hand, the OP-1 denied such allegations and has stated that they follow up action regarding redressal of disputes of the complainant and done the work in terms of the MOU but they could not refund Rs.25,000/- to the Bank Account of the complainant as he did not furnish bank details. Complainant also refused to accept bank draft of Rs.25,000/-. The OP-1 has not filed any proof to support their condition that they have done the work as per terms and conditions of the MOU. It is true that during pendency of the case the OP-1 prepared a Bank Draft of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant but the complainant did not accept the same. In absence of any cogent document we find no substance in the arguments of the OP-1 that they are already done the work of the subject car in terms of the MOU.
Looking at the time that has elapsed and the fact that the car was running somehow, and that the car definitely has some defect for which MOU was executed. We deem it appropriate to order that the complainant should be compensated appropriately by the OP-1 as the OP-1 did not replace alloy wheels tyre and other defects fully mentioned in the MOU dated 24.07.2017. No purpose would be served by replacing the subject car as the intention of the complainant was to purchase Renault Lodgy Car within the budget of Rs.10,00,000/- though the showroom price of the top model Renault Lodgy Car was Rs.14,00,000/- at the relevant point of time and the full price of the subject car after deducting some reasonable charges cannot be allowed to be refunded as the complainant has used the car for some time, though not satisfactory and the complainant is only entitled for replacement of allow wheels tyre and other items fully mentioned in the MOU dated 24.07.2017 free of cost under Warranty. Obviously, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1. In the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to partly allow the case and to order compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) only. Thus, all the points under determination are decided.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP-1 in part with cost of Rs,20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only and dismissed ex parte against OP-2 without any cost.
The OP-1 is directed to replace alloy wheels, tyre and other items fully described in the schedule of the MOU dated 24.07.2017 free of cost under warranty period within 30 days from the date of this order along with litigation cost. Complainant is directed to place the subject car to the workshop of OP-1 within 15 days from this day and the OP-1is also directed to remove the defects and / or replace the items fully mentioned in the MOU dated 24.07.2017 and also issue a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only in favour of the complainant and directly send it to the complainant at his recorded address fully mentioned in the cause title of the complaint petition under Speed Post with A/D within the statutory period.
OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty thousand) only to the complainant for causing harassment, mental pain and agony within the stipulated period.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order into execution, if the OP-1 transgresses to comply the order.
