J U D G E M E N T

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, ( in short, Act,1986), against the opposite parties for deficiency of service and harassment.
2. The case of the complainant is that on dated 07.04.2015, complainant purchased the vehicle Renault Duster RXZ, bearing a registration No. AR-01H3513 from the respondent dealer K. Square Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. located at Lekhi Village Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh. The complainant has maintained the vehicle as per the manual guidelines being provided by the respondent dealer, since the purchased of the vehicle from the respondent
3. The complainant on dated 05.03.2019 as a part of regular service has delivered her vehicle in good running condition for servicing at the respondent dealer. However on dated 28.03.2019, after 23 days the said vehicle started with some abnormal engine vibration, because of which the complainant had lodged a complaint before the staff and technical person namely Shri Jay Mishra of the dealer. On the advised of Shri Mishra, on 03.04.2019,the fuel tank of the said vehicle was washed, but still the problem was not solved.
4. That the respondent without knowing the exact reason of the problem of the complainant’s vehicle did several trial and experimentation over the said vehicle and after the long experimentation of 4 months on dated 04.07.2019 the complainant’s vehicle was declared as engine failure.
5. On dated 12.07.2019, the complainant personally met the Area Service Manager of the dealer and had discussed the problem, to the Area Service manager informed that there is no chance of complete engine failure and advised that problem might be due to head gasket leakage and assured to rectify the same and accordingly the mechanic of the dealer rectified it but still the problem remains the same and it has been four months since the complainant’s vehicle is lying in the dealer.
6. The complainant further claims that her vehicle was delivered to the respondent’s dealer in good running condition, except with some abnormal engine sound  and as such there is no chance of complete engine failure the respondent has completely failed to justify for engine’s failure.
7. That time and again the complainant requested the respondent to expedite the matter or replacement with new engine of the vehicle to which the respondent did not response, thus resulting into the loss and damage, mental agony upon the complainant. Thus, the respondent is liable for the loss & mental tension caused to the complainant.

8. The complainant has prayed this Commission for passing of an order for payment of compensation as under :-

(i) Rs 3,20,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for the cost of engine or replace with new engine.

9. The opposite party has contested the case by filing written statement/objection through Shri V.K Sonar, Advocate and refuting the allegation leveled against them.
10. The opposite party contended that on 05.03.2019 as a part of regular paid service, the basic things, such as Air filter, oil filter, engine Oil etc., were changed and the specific part Shock Absorber which the customer had complaint of, was repaired and replaced. The documents to that affect are annexed as ANNEXURE C1, page-32 in reply, and released the  said vehicle on the very same day to the complainant. Again on 03.04.2019 the fuel tank was washed, the relevant documents to that affect are annexed as ANNEXURE C-2, at Page 35 in reply. The engine was not at all touched during the servicing of the said vehicle.
11. The opposite party further contended that on 31.03.2019 the complainant reported  to the workshop with a complaint of RPM fluctuation during cold, starting with a white smoke and abnormal noises. Then, the opposite party complied the procedural and diagnostic steps,  such as checking the Air Filter and Fuel Filter for any clogging, cleaning fuel Tank and all fuel lines for any clogging, pressure and sensor check, fuel injectors check and engine compression test to Zero down on the root cause of the issue so that the appropriate solution could be provided to the complainant. The opposite party never did any unwarranted experimentation and tampered with the engine of the vehicle, as alleged by the complainant, only the diagonastic steps and necessary and procedural tests were performed on the said vehicle to diagnose the issues.
12.  The diagnostic test were very much warranted to find out the exact reason for finding out the issues reported, as there was no way a mechanic or technician could diagnose a vehicle for reported problems.
13. That it is only after performing necessary compression test of cylinder the cause of the issue reported was unearthed by the mechanic/technician and the conclusion was that there was a compression leakage on the engine. However, since the said vehicle was out of warranty period and further tests and procedures requires at engine level with the approval and authorization of the complainant but such warranted processes could not be completed as the complainant suggested not to carry any kind of work on the complainant’s vehicle.
14.  That opposite party further contented that in dealing with the complainant’s reported issues, neither opposite party has shown any negligence, nor there was any  deficiency in services caused to the complainant during the time of complainant’s visited to the opposite party’s workshop. As such, the entire allegation leveled against the opposite are misleading based on false hood and the allegation of deficiency in service are wholly groundless false, untenable in law. Therefore, the complainant’s complaint may be dismissed.
15. We have heard the arguments of  learned counsels for both the parties, perused the written argument submitted by them.
16.  From the material on record, it is clear that the vehicle was having some abnormal noise and  on complaint , the opposite party by following thorough procedure for diagonastic of the vehicle found that there was compression leakage on the engine. Since the said vehicle was purchased in the year 2015, and admittedly vehicle was out of warranty period as per the Renault New Warranty terms and condition. Therefore, the technical expert team asked for internal specimen of engine but the said processed could not be completed as complainant did not allow to carry out such work on her vehicle.
17.  Now, whether there was any negligent or deficiency of service on the part of respondent mishandling the complainant  vehicle ? To which, we have seen the material on records, from page 36 to 47 of the complaint’s petition that, there was thorough communication between the respondent and with its  technical expert team in regard to the said vehicle. Further, we have also noticed in the customer indecent report annexed at page 39 of reply, that the respondent after taking the guidance from the Renault technician, the test drive for about 14 KM was taken and the problem does not occur and the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant under observation explaining the same to the complainant about the concern by the opposite party.
18.  From the Annexure D-1 page 36 of the complaint petition, it is very clear that the problem of the vehicle was due to compression leakage on the engine, but same work was not allowed to carry out by the complainant herself.
19.  

(a) In any case by repairing or replacing any part, vehicle works well, there is no need to replace the vehicle with the new one.

(b) If vehicle is bearing a defect at the initial stage and knowing full well a defective vehicle is sold, complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and harassment he has undergone.

(c) If the vehicle is sent for repair time and again and cannot be repaired, there is no need to further obtain expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect.

In Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr (2006) 4 SCC 644 has held that, “where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction for replacement of the car would not be justified. “ Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for”.

          With the above order and directions, this complaint petition stands disposed of.

GIVEN under hand & seal of this Commission on this 29^th Day of January, 2021.

[NANI GRAYU][TARH LOMA][DEEPA YOKA]

 PRESIDENT                       MEMBER