CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/137/18

          Date of Institution:-    20.04.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 01.07.2024

                 Date of Decision:-      22.07.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

ShriPrakash Sharma

S/o Late ShPrahlad Sharma

R/o – Mohalla – Bani Israel, Khurja Road,

Jewar, District – GautamBudh Nagar

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Sales Manager

Renault Workshop, South Delhi,

Sprint Car Private Ltd., F-2/4,

Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1,

New Delhi

2. Sales Manager

Renault Gurgaon, Sprint Car Private Ltd.

Add:14, Times Tower, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road,

Gurgoan Haryana,

Workshop at:

Plot No.-135, Pace City, Sector-37,

Gurgaon, Haryana – 1220001

3. Renault India Private Limited

Through Director (Signatory)

Plot No.1, Shivkot Industrial Estate,

Post – Mattur, Shripyrambadore,

Kachipuram, Tamilnadu, 302105

.…..Opposite Parties

Per R. C. Yadav, Member

1. The brief facts of the case are that thecomplainant has purchased a car Duster LMV from OP-2 from its showroom on 17.03.2013. The complainant has paid amount of Rs.8,62,422/- as the cost of the car on 17.03.2013.The OP-3 is the Director (Signatory) of the Renault India Pvt. Ltd.and OP-2 is the franchise of OP-3 for Gurgaon Region from complainant has purchased the said vehicle. The OP-1 is the authorised workshop of OP-1 for South Delhi.The complainant usually took his vehicle for servicing at workshop of OP-1. The OP-2 has given sale letter/receipt with warranty of two years or 50000 kms whichever occur earlier to the said vehicle. OP-2 further extended warranty for more than two years or 80000 kms after taking some amount. The copy of the extended warranty is annexed. The vehicle got registered with the Uttar Pradesh Transport Authority bearing Registration no.UP16AP5410. The complainant usually took the vehicle for service at workshop of OP-1 as per the rules and direction of OP-2. On 03.04.2015, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant took his vehicle at OP-1 at Okhla. Cost of repair of the vehicle amounting to Rs.89,316/- was paid by the complainant to OP-1.After the repair of the vehicle, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle but within a fortnight of 18.04.2015, the engine of the vehicle got seized. The complainant informed the OP-1 about the same and the vehicle was towed at Renault Workshop, Sector-63, GautamBudha Nagar. The official of the workshop demanded the cost for repair of the seized engine in advance. On this the complainant shifted the vehicle to the OP-1 workshop at Okhla and got it repaired. The complainant has paid Rs.1,37,262/- as a cost for repair of the engine. Despite the repair of the engine, the problem of the overheating engine not solved and the complainant informed the OP-1 about the problem through phone. The OP-1 has sent email to complainant and directed him to come again for repair and given estimated cost of Rs.45,000/- for repair. The complainant took his vehicle to OP-1 at Okhla where OP-1 took Rs.72,331/- as a repair cost instead of estimated cost of Rs.45,000/-. But despite repair, the engine of the said car was not repaired to the mark and the overheating problem of the vehicle remained consistent. The complainant informed the OP-1 and 2 about the same problem. The complainant has requested the OP-1 & 2 to repair the engine but no one came forward to solve his problem. The complainant has sent a legal notice to 18.03.2017 to replace the engine of the vehicle.The complainant has prayed for replacement  of the engine or refund of Rs.3 lakh with interest of @24% p.a. and Rs.2 lakh towards harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges.

2. Notice of the complaint was served to OPs. OPs did not appear to attend the proceedings and proceeded ex-pate vide order dated 24.09.2018.

3. The complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence along with written arguments in support of his case.

4. We have gone through the entire record carefully and thoroughly.

5. It is the case of the complainant the complainant has purchased a car Duster LMV from OP-2 from its showroom on 17.03.2013. The complainant has paid amount of Rs.8,62,422/- as the cost of the car on 17.03.2013. The OP-3 is the Director (Signatory) of the Renault India Pvt. Ltd. and OP-2 is the franchise of OP-3 for Gurgaon Region from complainant has purchased the said vehicle. The OP-1 is the authorised workshop of OP-1 for South Delhi. The complainant usually took his vehicle for servicing at workshop of OP-1. The OP-2 has given sale letter/receipt with warranty of two years or 50000 kms whichever occur earlier to the said vehicle. OP-2 further extended warranty for more than two years or 80000 kms after taking some amount. The copy of the extended warranty is annexed. The vehicle got registered with the Uttar Pradesh Transport Authority bearing Registration no.UP16AP5410. The complainant usually took the vehicle for service at workshop of OP-1 as per the rules and direction of OP-2. On 03.04.2015, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant took his vehicle at OP-1 at Okhla. Cost of repair of the vehicle amounting to Rs.89,316/- was paid by the complainant to OP-1. After the repair of the vehicle, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle but within a fortnight of 18.04.2015, the engine of the vehicle got seized. The complainant informed the OP-1 about the same and the vehicle was towed at Renault Workshop, Sector-63, GautamBudha Nagar. The official of the workshop demanded the cost for repair of the seized engine in advance. On this the complainant shifted the vehicle to the OP-1 workshop at Okhla and got it repaired. The complainant has paid Rs.1,37,262/- as a cost for repair of the engine. Despite the repair of the engine, the problem of the overheating engine not solved and the complainant informed the OP-1 about the problem through phone. The OP-1 has sent email to complainant and directed him to come again for repair and given estimated cost of Rs.45,000/- for repair. The complainant took his vehicle to OP-1 at Okhla where OP-1 took Rs.72,331/- as a repair cost instead of estimated cost of Rs.45,000/-. But despite repair, the engine of the said car was not repaired to the mark and the overheating problem of the vehicle remained consistent. The complainant informed the OP-1 and 2 about the same problem. The complainant has requested the OP-1 & 2 to repair the engine but no one came forward to solve his problem.The complainant has taken extended warranty for more than two years from the ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co.The complainant has paid the consideration for the repair of his car but the car was not repaired satisfactory inspite of the payments Rs.89,316/-, Rs.137,262/- and Rs.72,331/-on the different occasions. The OPs have not done repair of the car satisfactorily and the defects in the car (engine overheating) was continued. The complainant has requested the OP-2 &3 to rectify the problem in the car but the OPs have not rectified the engine heating problem in the car, which clearly constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

6. The allegation made by the complainant has gone unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontested and as such whatever has been placed on record is believed.

7. Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP-2 and 3 jointly or severally to refund Rs.3,00,000/- along with an interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint along with Rs.50,000/- lump sum for mental agony and litigation charges within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OP2 & 3 shall be liable to pay entire amount with interest of 9% p.a. till realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 22.07.2024.