Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/1357

Surendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Renault Palace Orchards - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 22.07.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 06.03.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1357/2013

DATED THIS THE 6^th MARCH OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Surendra Kumar,

S/o Sambhulal Yadav,

Aged about 40 years,

No.235, Vimal Nivas, Dasarahalli Main Road,

Hebbal Next to Inland. Bengaluru-24.

 

By Adv.Sri.Ramesh Kumar     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. The Manager,

Renault Palace Orchards,

Trident Auto Enterprises (P) ltd., no.210/2, Upper Palace Orchards, Sadashivanagar, Bellary Road, Bengaluru-80.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Kruthine Law Chambers

 

2. The General Manager,  

Renault India Pvt. Ltd.,

Head Office ASV Ramana Tower, no.37, 38, 4^th floor, Venkatanarayana Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017.

 

By Advocates

M/s.Lex Justicia Advocates

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 & 2 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 & 2 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction to pay Rs.9,05,993/- as per Invoice with interest at 18% p.a. till the date of payment. Further direct them to pay damages of Rs.2 lakh towards physical injuries, mental agony with cost and to pass such other orders deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he has purchased a car Renault Duster RXL DC (HSRAW5) from Op as per the invoice no.VSLA 12000602, dtd.18.09.12, overall value on the road condition sum of Rs.9,05,993/- and by availing bank loan sum of Rs.5 lakh from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., Sankey road, Bengaluru. It is the case of the Complainant that, there is no anywhere address of the manufacturing company M/s.Renualt India ltd., mentioned in the invoice nor any contact address given by the Op, who is the authorized dealer of Mahindra Automobile company and is also whole sale stockiest and dealer. The Complainant further submits that, due to assembling no maintain quality control of the vehicle/car, when Complainant is started using the vehicle, the same has giving trouble in its proper functioning, despite running the same in accordance with the instruction given on the Leaflet supplied by the Op. The Complainant further submits that, the matter was reported to Op by the Complainant and asked to hand over the vehicle to the dealer service vehicle centre, Narayanapura, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru on 06.05.13. The concerned Engineer mechanic informed/told to the Complainant that there is defect and default in some of components and also there is assembling problem of engine of the vehicle and is has to be replaced and not maintain the quality control by the dealer company, the vehicle problem started till date. The Complainant further submits that, on 08.07.13, he issued legal notice, but till date no reply from them. The Complainant further submits that, since beginning, the vehicle diesel pipe was leaking and very less mileage of the vehicle, the same has been reported to the vehicle dealer as well as to his Engineer Mechanic, they gone keeping saying that there is defect of components of vehicle and engine. The Complainant further submits that, Op concerned service centre authority has not rectified the vehicle manufacturing defect nor replaced the components since 2 months keeping vehicle in their yard. The vehicle has been delivered last week, again same problem of the vehicle engine giving trouble creating lot of problem to the Complainant and even causing damage of the business of the Complainant, who is professionally Architect Engineer having lot of work base and due to vehicle problem, he has lost heavy time/money and mental agony.  The Complainant further submits that, when third time the Complainant brought notice to Op that, vehicle problem has been not solved, the Op assured that they are sending the vehicle to the manufacturing company and if required they will be replacing the vehicle or whole defected components of the vehicle and promised that within a month the vehicle problem will be rectified by changing or replacing the vehicle.  The Complainant further submits that, when he contacted to the Op, who showed his inability stating that whole problem of the vehicle was due to manufacturing defect and the component was not so standard and for the same only manufacturing company are responsible as Op is dealer and stockist. Hence prays to allow the complaint

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 & 2 did appear and filed separate version commonly denying the contents of the complaint. The sum and substance of the version of the Op.no.1 & 2 are that, the said vehicle had met with a major accident on 28.03.13 and it is a condition made in the warranty that the warranty is void if the vehicle meets with an accident. Ops further submitted that there is no specific allegation with regard to the manufacturing defect of any particular part of the vehicle. The vehicle manufactured by Op.no.2 is certified by Automotive Research Authority of India, Pune (ARAI). It is only after stringent tests including roadworthiness, the vehicles are allowed to be manufactured and sold. Ops further submitted that, due to the accident, the front portion of the vehicle was severely damaged. It is the common knowledge that the radiator and A.C. condenser would be placed at the front in order to get the air while driving. Due to the impact, the A.C Condenser and the Radiator was seriously damaged along with other parts. A.C. gas along with the coolant was leaked out. The coolant acts as an agent to reduce heat generated in the engine. However, the vehicle was driven dry without coolant in the engine resulting in rising of the temperature in the engine beyond the permitted levels. As a consequence of the over heat in the engine, caused by driving the vehicle without coolant, a valve in the cylinder head got bent, resulting in slight un-natural noise in engine. It is only the experts in the filed who could identify such un-natural noise. In order to keep the engine in upright condition, it was suggested for replacement of valve and accordingly changed. In so far as leakage of coolant from the water pump is concerned, it is either due to the impact of the accident or due to running the water pump without the coolant water. Thus, it is very clear that there would be no manufacturing defect of whatsoever nature. The fact that the vehicle was driven when there was no coolant has been noted in the work order dtd.04.04.13 at un-disputed point of time. Ops further submitted that, the vehicle was given for regular service on 06.05.13. After the accident, all visible parts, which are damaged, have been replaced. However, some parts, which are damaged due to the accident, cannot be identified during the normal visual inspection and test drives. There was some damage to the water pump of the engine. This was replaced under warranty despite the fact there was no warranty for the accident vehicle. The same was done just to keep the customer happy. Ops further submitted that, the allegation regarding keeping the vehicle for two months in the yard is not because of manufacturing defect. The spare parts godown of Op.no.2, caught fire at Chennai and spare parts worth crores was gutted in fire. Due to the occurrence of such force majeure, there was some delay in supply of spares to the said vehicle and hence it cannot be termed as deficiency of service. The spare part that was required for the said vehicle was imported on priority basis. Immediately on receipt of the same, it was fitted in the vehicle at free of cost and vehicle was delivered without causing any further delay. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced documents as A1 to A6. Op.no.1 did not file his affidavit evidence but produced the documents as B1 to B5. The Chief Financial Officer and General Manager of Op.no.2 filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents as B6 to B7. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle ?
2. Whether the Complainant further proves the deficiency of service on the part of Ops,
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought for ?  
4. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: In the Negative. 

Point no.3: In the Negative. 

Point no.4: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1 & 2:  Since these points are interconnected, hence we have taken these points together for our discussion just to avoid the repetition of the facts.

 

          8. Looking to the contents of the complaint with reference to the version filed by Op.no.1 & 2, one thing is clear that, Complainant has suppressed the material facts in respect of the said vehicle which was met with an accident.  It is also evident that, whatever the damage caused to the said vehicle during the course of accident, is not come within the purview of warranty period. As to know, whether, manufacturing defect if any, the said vehicle was not subjected for expert’s opinion. In the absence of the expert’s opinion, it is unsafe to arrive at conclusion in the light of the following reported decisions cited by learned counsel for the Op.no.2.

1) I (1992) CPJ 279 NC

2) IV (2006) CPJ 257 NC

3) II (2005) CPJ 102 NC

4) I (2007) CPJ 2 NC

5) II (2008) CPJ 111 NC

 

          9. Further we noticed that, after the accident, the said vehicle was run without any coolant oil. In this context, we place reliance on the document B1, wherein, in the column of ‘Customer Verbatim’ it is stated that “Carry out Accidental Repair As per Cholamandalam Insurance Approval, Note: After accident without coolant vehicle driven certain km (no coolant oil and water)”. It is also noticed that, whenever, the said vehicle was brought for repair, Op has promptly attended it. Inspite of it, Complainant is raising the issue of manufacturing defect, which does not survive for consideration in the absence of expert opinion with reference to the decisions cited supra by the learned counsel for Op.no.2. Under such circumstances, the claim of the Complainant with regard to the refund of cost of the vehicle with interest and damages so also the cost of litigation does not survive. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 & 2 in the negative.

  10. Point no.3: In view of our findings on point no.1 & 2, complaint filed by the Complainant is lacking merits and liable to be dismissed, since there is no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle much less the deficiency of service on the part of Ops. When such being the fact, Complainant is not entitled for any of the relief sought for.  Accordingly we answered the point no.3 in the negative.

 

11. Point no.4: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 6^th March 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Surendrakumar, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Doc.A1	Invoice dtd.18.09.12
Doc.A2	Loan availed from Kotak Mahindra Prime ltd., for a sum of Rs.5 lakh dtd.05.10.12
Doc.A3	Service centre bill no.2080 dtd.06.05.13 by Op
Doc.A4	Legal notice dtd.08.07.13
Doc.A5 & A6	Postal receipts and postal acknowledgements

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Galametz Axel, who being the Chief Financial Officer and General Manager of Op.no.2 was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Op No.1

 

Doc.B1 to B5

Repair orders dtd.28.03.13, 06.05.12, 20.07.13, 06.08.13, 31.08.13

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Op No.2

 

Doc.B6 & B7

Repair order dtd.20.07.13, 06.05.13

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT