West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/50/2018

Sri Manoj Agarwala, The Director of Saria Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.(Being represented on behalf of Saria Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. of Bazar Para) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Renault India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anish Das

10 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat, West Bengal
Old Sub jail Market Complex, 2nd Floor, P.O. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur Pin-733101
 
Complaint Case No. CC/50/2018
( Date of Filing : 28 May 2018 )
 
1. Sri Manoj Agarwala, The Director of Saria Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.(Being represented on behalf of Saria Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. of Bazar Para)
P.O. & P.S. - Balurghat, Pin- 733101
Dakshin Dinajpur
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Renault India Pvt. Ltd.
ASV Ramana Towers, 37-38, 4th floor Venkata Narayana Road, T-Nagar, Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600017
2. The Authorised Dealer, Renault India
429/354, Skystar Building, Sevoke Road,Siliguri, Derjeeling, Pin- 734001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Qazi Safiur Rahman PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha Lady Member
 HON'BLE MR. Subhas Chandra Chakraborty MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Anish Das, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 10 Aug 2018
Final Order / Judgement

Refusal of repairing the vehicle by the OP-2 and also no response from the OP-1 have obliged the consumer to lodge this complaint for redressal u/s 12 of the CP Act 1986.

 

The summation of the complaint goes that the complainant being the owner of a car- a make of the OP-1 met an accident on 2.11.2017 at 14 Mile under Tapan Police Station of Dakshin Dinajpur. The accident was registered by the concerned police station vide P.S. Case No.328/2017 dt. 03.11.2017. The police had investigated into the case and made an inquiry into the said vehicle by an automobile mechanical expert, the report of which reflects that the accident caused due to no mechanical defect but the ABS system did not function at the time of accident. But according to the company’s literature of merits of the vehicle model Duster Diesel HP RXL BS iv the ABS system will function immediately at the time of accident. This has been brought to the notice of the OP-2, but the OP-2 has relinquished all responsibilities and refused to repair the vehicle. This has also been brought to the notice of the OP-1 but the OP-1 has also not given proper attention to the complaint. On 08.03.2018 the OP-2 had been issued a lawyer’s notice by the complainant but the same reply had been sent by them. Under the circumstances the complainant had lodged this complaint with a prayer to instruct the OP-2 and OP-1 to repair the ABS system of the vehicle and claimed a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakh) only along with a litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand).

 

The OP-1 and OP-2 had been sent summons but they did not bother to honour the summons of this Forum. Under the circumstances ex-parte hearing against the OP-1 and OP-2 went on.

 

On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant told what had been stated for his written complaint and cited some documents and rulings which were not filed to this Forum.

 

Points for discussion:

  1. Whether the complainant is a consumer to the OP-1 and OP-2?

 

  1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 and OP-2?

 

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

From the written complaint it is revealed that the vehicle was purchased sometime in 2013 from the OP-2 but it is not clear whether any warrantee / guarantee exists till the date of lodging this complaint. It is also revealed that the vehicle has insurance coverage during the period of accident, but probably the complainant has no grievance against the insurance company. It is a general practice the service centers or authorized dealer of any particular company carry on the repairing job of the concerned company make vehicles. It is not clear why the OP-2 who is the dealer of the OP-1 had refused to take up the repairing job. We feel it is an intentional deficiency in service on the part of the OP-2. Moreover, when the refusal by the OP-2 has been brought to the notice OP-1, they had also taken no pain to mitigate the grievances of the bona-fide customer. Here also lies deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1.

 

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

The OP-2 is instructed to get the vehicle repaired immediately within 30 days from the date of this order. If OP-2 refuses to take the job immediately, the complainant is instructed to bring it to the notice to the OP-1 immediately. The OP-2 is instructed further to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only as compensation causing mental harassment to the complainant along with a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Failing to comply with the order within the stipulated time the OP-1 and OP-2 has to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh) only as a whole in equal share to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ 8% p.a. will be incurred on the compensation amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh) only.

 

 

            The case be and the same succeeds on contest.

            Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

            The Registrar-in-Charge of this office is instructed to send a copy of this order to OP-1 and OP-2 immediately by registered post.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Qazi Safiur Rahman]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. Swapna saha]
Lady Member
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subhas Chandra Chakraborty]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.