Order No.  14  dt.  05/09/2018

                 The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster-RLX OPT NAV car and immediately after purchasing of the same the complainant found that the car had inherent defect. The complainant is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of Indian Army and he has vast experience in respect of different types of car, jeeps, etc. The complainant purchased the said car from the distributor of o.p. no.1 i.e. o.p. no.2 on 31.3.13 for a sum of Rs.10,98,000/- and the trouble for the first time arose on 9.2.17. An intolerable noise or sound of engine was coming out and the complainant went to the service centre and he was charged with an amount of Rs.20,300/-. Subsequently further defect was found in the said car and the complainant went to the service centre and job estimate amount had been fixed at Rs.3,36,891/-. The complainant was asked to deposit 50% of the amount before undertaking the said job. The complainant further stated that he regularly made service of his vehicle from time to time and the sound in engine started after 3^rd service. But in spite of intimation to o.p. no.3 estimated the bill amounting to Rs.3,41,491/-. The complainant found that the car had inherent defect and repeatedly the various problems cropped up for which the complainant did not receive the car from the service centre. The complainant from time to time made correspondences with o.ps. but no fruitful result was achieved, ultimately the complainant had to filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of the defective engine of the said car as well as compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. In their w/v the o.p. no.1 stated that the o.p. no.1 has authorized the o.p. nos.2 and 3 to sell the cars manufactured by o.p. no.1 and provided all pre sale and post sale service to the customers intending to purchase the car from o.ps. Once the cars reach the showroom of the dealers it is the duty of o.p. nos.2 and 3 to provide service to the customer with relation to buying of a car. The o.p. no.1 cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The entire responsibility of the said car confers upon o.p. nos.2 and 3. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                In their w/v the o.p. no.2 stated that the o.p. no.2 cannot be held guilty of gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as within the ambit of C.P. Act and o.p. no.2 cannot be held responsible for replacement of the engine of the said car with a new one without payment of any amount. The o.p. no.2 is ignorant of the said incident as the dealership of o.p. no.2 was terminated in the year 2013 itself. The claim made by the complainant is a fictitious one and thereby o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                In their w/v the o.p. no.3 stated that the subject vehicle was under warranty norms as provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle concerned, as such, any applicability of warranty service is completely guided by the warranty contract and any breach of warranty procedure by the complainant concerned will disqualify the complainant for getting warranty service of the vehicle as has been done in the instant case and as such, the claim of the complainant is not tenable in law. The complainant filed this case after four years from the date of purchase of the said vehicle and as such, the instant case is not maintainable under the C.P. Act. The complainant himself is liable for non servicing of the subject vehicle as per warranty norms and as such, he is not entitled to get any warranty benefit for violation of warranty procedure and on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant purchased the vehicle?
2. Whether there was any defect in the said vehicle within the warranty period?
3. Whether the complainant filed this case within the statutory period as laid down u/s 24(A) of the C.P. Act?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Renault Duster -RLX OPT NAV car and immediately after purchasing of the same the complainant found that the car had inherent defect. The complainant is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of Indian Army and he has vast experience in respect of different types of car, jeeps, etc. The complainant purchased the said car from the distributor of o.p. no.1 i.e. o.p. no.2 on 31.3.13 for a sum of Rs.10,98,000/- and the trouble for the first time arose on 9.2.17. An intolerable noise or sound of engine was coming out and the complainant went to the service centre and he was charged with an amount of Rs.20,300/-. Subsequently further defect was found in the said car and the complainant went to the service centre and job estimate amount had been fixed at Rs.3,36,891/-. The complainant was asked to deposit 50% of the amount before undertaking the said job. The complainant further stated that he regularly made service of his vehicle from time to time and the sound in engine started after 3^rd service. But in spite of intimation to o.p. no.3 estimated the bill amounting to Rs.3,41,491/-. The complainant found that the car had inherent defect and repeatedly the various problems cropped up for which the complainant did not receive the car from the service centre. The complainant from time to time made correspondences with o.ps. but no fruitful result was achieved, ultimately the complainant had to filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for replacement of the defective engine of the said car as well as compensation and litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that the o.p. no.1 has authorized the o.p. nos.2 and 3 to sell the cars manufactured by o.p. no.1 and provided all pre sale and post sale service to the customers intending to purchase the car from o.ps. Once the cars reach the showroom of the dealers it is the duty of o.p. nos.2 and 3 to provide service to the customer with relation to buying of a car. The o.p. no.1 cannot be held responsible for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The entire responsibility of the said car confers upon o.p. nos.2 and 3. On the basis of the said fact o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.2 argued that the o.p. no.2 cannot be held guilty of gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as within the ambit of C.P. Act and o.p. no.2 cannot be held responsible for replacement of the engine of the said car with a new one without payment of any amount. The o.p. no.2 is ignorant of the said incident as the dealership of o.p. no.2 was terminated in the year 2013 itself. The claim made by the complainant is a fictitious one and thereby o.p. no.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.3 argued that the subject vehicle was under warranty norms as provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle concerned, as such, any applicability of warranty service is completely guided by the warranty contract and any breach of warranty procedure by the complainant concerned will disqualify the complainant for getting warranty service of the vehicle as has been done in the instant case and as such, the claim of the complainant is not tenable in law. The complainant filed this case after four years from the date of purchase of the said vehicle and as such, the instant case is not maintainable under the C.P. Act. The complainant himself is liable for non servicing of the subject vehicle as per warranty norms and as such, he is not entitled to get any warranty benefit for violation of warranty procedure and on the basis of the said fact o.p. no.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle manufactured by o.p. no.1 and the complainant has claimed that the said vehicle started to create disturbance immediately after the purchase of the same. The o.p. no.3 categorically stated that as per the warranty clause the complainant did not avail of the service to be provided to the complainant free of cost and due to non availing of such service during the warranty period the complainant, if at all faced any problem in respect of driving the said vehicle it was the fault on the part of the complainant himself. The complainant has not prayed for any appointment of expert to examine the vehicle that it had inherent defect and the same was detected immediately after the purchase of the same. It appears from the materials on record that after the lapse of warranty period and without availing the free service provided to the complainant, the complainant went to the service centre and the service centre demanded the amount from the complainant. It appears from the materials on record that o.p. no.3 repeatedly requested the complainant to remove the vehicle from his place, but the complainant failed to ignore the same, ultimately o.p. no.3 sent a letter to the complainant demanding the charges for keeping the vehicle in their place @ Rs.250 per day for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation against the o.ps. It appears from the materials on record that the vehicle had run 60,000 kms. If there would  have been any defect in the said vehicle  certainly the same could have run for 60,000 kms. It appears from the record that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2013 and the defect alleged by the complainant arose within a short period of time and the complainant did not seek for invoking the warranty clause for which o.p. no.1 could have been duty bound to rectify the same during the said period. The complainant after the lapse of so many years filed this case and accordingly we hold that the case was filed beyond the period of limitation of two years as laid down u/s 24(A) of the C.P. Act. Apart from the said fact the complainant has claimed for replacement of the engine of the said car beyond the period of warranty, as such, no direction can be given in favour of the complainant and since the complainant himself was at fault for the defect, if at all arose in the said car since he did not avail of the service during warranty period, thereby we hold that the case filed by the complainant is a misconceived one and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.         

                Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.232/2017 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.