Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/6/2016

R.H.Raju S/o. R.Ranganath - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri.N.S.Shamsundr

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

 

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:01.02.2016

DISPOSED      ON:25.11.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  CHITRADURGA.

 

 

CC.NO: 6/2016

 

DATED:  25^th NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI. N.THIPPESWAMY        MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                  

……COMPLAINANT	R.H. Raju S/o R. Ranganath, Age: 32 Years, Agriculturist and Business Man, R/o Sri Ranga Nilaya, 100 Feet Road, Vedavathi Nagar, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri.N.S. Shamsundar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, Renault India Pvt., Plot No.1, Sipcot Industrial Estate, Mattur (Post), Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram, Tamilnadu-602 105.   2. The Manager, Trident Auto Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Survey No.18/1c, Pandtrapalya, Nayandahalligrama, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore-38.   (Rep by Sri. K.P. Kashinath, Advocate for  OP No.2, OP No.1 ex-parte)

 

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.3,40,806/- with interest at 24% p.a from 12.07.2015, cost and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he has purchased Renault Duster Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M 8474, Engine No.E 025551 on 18.06.2013 for a valuable consideration with warranty of 24 months or 50000 Kms whichever occurs earlier from the date of delivery of the same, in addition to that, the vehicle will be covered under an extended warranty for a period of another two years or additional 30000 KMs whichever occurs earlier in all 48 months or 80000 KMs whichever occurs earlier from the date of purchase of the vehicle which depicts from the documents like service manual book.  It is further submitted that, complainant runs the vehicle only for 64000 KMs as on 07.07.2015, the vehicle covers under additional warranty period.  The complainant maintained the vehicle with proper servicing i.e., 7 services from the date of purchase in the same show room where the vehicle has been delivered by OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1 who is authorized to service the vehicle during the warranty period and thereafter also.  It is further submitted that, after the seventh service i.e., on 07.07.2015, oil leakage problem starts on 12.07.2015 within a span of 4 days and in the said period complainant has ran the vehicle only 1000 KMs i.e., only 10% of the next service.  On 12.07.2015 when the complainant went to Davanagere along with his father for his medical checkup, at about 1-00 PM after crossing Bharamasagar near Emmehatti, driver observed temperature pop-up in the vehicle and parked the same at road side and opened engine Bonnet and saw the leakage of oil from the coolant box and also bad smell.  It is further submitted that, on 12.07.2015 complainant took the vehicle to Nagashanti Service Station, Hubli, where the servicing authorities examined and informed the complainant that they will contact with OP No.1 and after confirmation they will do the service.  After 15 days, they told that, the vehicle does not comes under warranty period and the vehicle will be repaired if the complainant paid the charges and no discount facility will be available.  OP No.2 declined to give service to the vehicle and as per the instruction of OP No.2, complainant tows the vehicle at his own cost even though the vehicle is under warranty period, the same is to be paid by OP No.2 as the vehicle is under warranty period but, they collected repair charges of Rs.1,41,606/- and delivered the vehicle after a lapse of three months.  OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer.  The complainant got issued legal notice through his Advocate on 16.11.2015, the notice was served on OP No.2 and failed to reply the same but, OP No.1 refused to receive the notice.  The cause of action arose for the complainant to file complaint on 12.07.2015 at Bharamasagar when the vehicle started giving trouble. The act of the OPs in showing the negligence in providing necessary repairs to the vehicle of the complainant is a deficiency of service and prayed for allowing the complaint. 

3.      On service of notice, OP No.2 appeared through Sri. K.P. Kashinath, Advocate and filed version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.1 remained absent and placed ex-parte. 

OP No.2 filed version stating that, complainant has purchased the Duster Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M 8474 on 18.06.2013.  It is further submitted that, complainant brought the alleged vehicle for service on 07.07.2015 and after receiving the vehicle, the mechanics opened repair order No.ROBAJG16002809 with odometer reading of 60200 KMs and on the same day the complainant has taken the delivery after its due service.  It is further submitted that, on 12.07.2015 at about 12.55 PM complainant called the OP No.2 with a problem of “Getting Burning smell from vehicle and coolant oil is leaking” and the towing assistance reached the spot and the vehicle loaded in Flat Belt Towing and towed to nearest Hubli Service Station.  It is further submitted that, during previous occasion on 07.07.2015 when the complainant left the vehicle for service, the odometer reading was 60200 KMs and after the service, the car has travelled a distance of 1215 KMs within a span of 5 days i.e., on 12.07.2015.  It is further submitted that, when the oil is leaking, even though the advice was given to the complainant not to drive the vehicle, the complainant has driven the car for in a same condition, which resulting in damage of engine/seizer of the engine.  It is further submitted that, after towing the said car to the Hubli Service Station, once again complainant brought the alleged car in same condition i.e., in towing condition to their Bangalore Service Centre from Hubli on 29.07.2015 and they informed the complainant that there is no warranty and gave an estimation and as a good gesture, accepted to give discount and complainant given a consent for commencement of the work in the middle of August 2015 and repair works are carried out based on the delivery of delicate and form internal parts of engine and other crucial parts of the vehicle by the manufacturers and brought the car to roadworthy condition on 14.09.2015 and the total bill was Rs.1,89,832/- and a good gesture they have given a discount of Rs.48,226/- and at last complainant has paid Rs.1,41,606/- and took the car back on the same day but, denied the allegations made by the complainant that, OP No.2 delivered the car on 13.10.2015 after a lapse of 3 months.  Once again complainant left the car alleging A.C problem on 05.10.2015 and after receiving the same, their staff opened a job card No.ROBAJG16005308 with odometer reading 64204 KMs on 07.10.2015 and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle and the service done as Free of Cost Basis.  It is further submitted that, they are the reputed dealer of the world renowed car manufacturer of RENAULT and they manufacture luxury and high end cars after a lot of research and engineering innovations, the cars are sophisticated in nature and have to be handled with at least a minimum care and caution, which are clearly given and mentioned in the owner’s manual.  They are no scope for compromising on quality standards, quality of cars and service delivered to their customers, on their level conducts and which is termed as “Pre Delivery Inspections” before delivery from service.  It is further submitted that, as there was no proper maintenance and due to negligence on the part of complainant only, the car driven in breach of instructions mentioned in the owner’s manual and therefore,    car damaged/engine got seized and the vehicle has been driven against the instructions contained in the manual book and the instructions given to the buyer at the time of purchase.  Therefore, there is no defect in the service done by the OP NO.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-11 were got marked. On behalf of OP No.2, Sri. G.N. Narasimhan, Deputy General Manager has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and documents have been got marked at Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5.   

5.      Written Arguments filed and oral arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs  have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant purchased Renault Duster Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M 8474, Engine No.E 025551 on 18.06.2013 for a valuable consideration with warranty of 24 months or 50000 KMs whichever occurs earlier from the date of delivery of the same, in addition to that, the vehicle will be covered under an extended warranty for a period of another two years or additional 30000 KMs whichever occurs earlier in all 48 months or 80000 KMs whichever occurs earlier from the date of purchase of the vehicle which depicts from the documents like service manual book.  The complainant maintained the vehicle with proper servicing i.e., 7 services from the date of purchase in the same show room where the vehicle has been delivered by OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1 who is authorized to service the vehicle during the warranty period and thereafter also.  After the seventh service i.e., on 07.07.2015, oil leakage problem starts on 12.07.2015 within a span of 4 days and in the said period complainant has ran the vehicle only 1000 KMs i.e., only 10% of the next service.  On 12.07.2015, driver observed temperature pop-up in the vehicle and parked the same at road side and opened engine Bonnet and saw the leakage of oil from the coolant box and also bad smell.  On 12.07.2015 complainant took the vehicle to Nagashanti Service Station, Hubli, where the servicing authorities examined and after 15 days, they told that, the vehicle does not comes under warranty period and the vehicle will be repaired if the complainant paid the charges and no discount facility will be available.  OP No.2 declined to give service to the vehicle and as per the instruction of OP No.2, complainant tows the vehicle at his own cost, the same is to be paid by OP No.2 as the vehicle is under warranty period but, they collected repair charges of Rs.1,41,606/- and delivered the vehicle after a lapse of three months.  It is not in dispute that, OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer.   The act of the OPs in showing the negligence in providing necessary repairs to the vehicle of the complainant is a deficiency of service.

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like extended warranty card marked as Ex.A-1, service sheets marked as Ex.A-2, cash receipt dated 28.07.2015 of Xn Towings marked as Ex.A-3, Tax Invoice dated 13.10.2015 marked as Ex.A-4, Repair Order dated 29.07.2015  marked as Ex.A-5, Mail sent by the complainant dated 25.07.2015 marked as Ex.A-6, letter written by the brother of complainant marked as Ex.A-7, vehicle history marked as Ex.A-8, office copy of legal notice dated 16.11.2015 marked as Ex.A-9, Returned postal cover marked as Ex.A-10 and Returned Postal acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-11.

   10. On the other hand, it is argued by the OP No.2 that, complainant purchased Duster Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M 8474 on 18.06.2013 and brought the alleged vehicle for service on 07.07.2015 and after receiving the vehicle, the mechanics opened repair order No.ROBAJG16002809 with odometer reading of 60200 KMs and on the same day the complainant has taken the delivery after its due service.  Again on 12.07.2015 at about 12.55 PM complainant called the OP No.2 with a problem of “Getting Burning smell from vehicle and coolant oil is leaking” and the towing assistance reached the spot and the vehicle loaded in Flat Belt Towing and towed to nearest Hubli Service Station.  On 07.07.2015 when the complainant left the vehicle for service, the odometer reading was 60200 KMs and after the service, the car has travelled at a distance of 1215 KMs within a span of 5 days i.e., on 12.07.2015.  When the oil is leaking, even though the advice was given to the complainant not to drive the vehicle, the complainant has driven the car in a same condition, which resulting in damage of engine/seizer of the engine.  After towing the said car to the Hubli Service Station, once again complainant brought the alleged car in same condition i.e., in towing condition to their Bangalore Service Centre from Hubli on 29.07.2015 and they informed the complainant that there is no warranty and gave an estimation and repair works are carried out based on the delivery of delicate and form internal parts of engine and other crucial parts of the vehicle by the manufacturers and brought the car to roadworthy condition on 14.09.2015 and the total bill was Rs.1,89,832/- and as a good gesture they have given a discount of Rs.48,226/- and at last complainant has paid Rs.1,41,606/- and took the car back on the same day.   Once again complainant left the car alleging A.C problem on 05.10.2015 and after receiving the same, their staff opened a job card No.ROBAJG16005308 with odometer reading 64204 KMs on 07.10.2015 and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle and the service done as Free of Cost Basis.  They are not giving scope for compromising on quality standards, quality of cars and service delivered to their customers, on their level conducts and which is termed as “Pre Delivery Inspections” before delivery from service, as there was no proper maintenance and due to negligence on the part of complainant only, the car damaged/engine got seized and the vehicle has been driven against the instructions contained in the manual book and the instructions given to the buyer at the time of purchase. 

11.    In support of its contention, the OP No.2 has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like CD marked as Ex.B-1, Service vehicle acceptance form/repair order marked as Ex.B-2, e-mail by complainant requesting to give discount marked as Ex.B-3, Tax Invoice dated 14.09.2015 marked as Ex.B-4, Service vehicle acceptance form/repair order marked as Ex.B-5.

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has purchased Renault Duster Car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 M 8474 on 18.06.2013 for a valuable consideration with warranty of 24 months or 50000 KMs with extended warranty of  48 months or 80000 KMs whichever occurs earlier from the date of purchase of the vehicle which depicts from the documents like service manual book.  The complainant maintained the vehicle with proper servicing but, after the seventh service i.e., on 07.07.2015, oil leakage problem starts on 12.07.2015 within a span of 4 days and in the said period complainant has ran the vehicle only 1000 KMs i.e., only 10% of the next service.  On 12.07.2015, driver observed temperature pop-up in the vehicle and parked the same at road side and opened engine Bonnet and saw the leakage of oil from the coolant box and also bad smell.  On 12.07.2015 complainant took the vehicle to Nagashanti Service Station, Hubli, where the servicing authorities examined and after 15 days, they told that, the vehicle does not comes under warranty period and the vehicle will be repaired if the complainant paid the charges and no discount facility will be available.  OP No.2 declined to give service to the vehicle and as per the instruction of OP No.2, complainant tows the vehicle at his own cost but, they collected repair charges of Rs.1,41,606/- and delivered the vehicle. It is not in dispute that, OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer.   It is pertinent to note that, when the customer purchased the vehicle for valuable consideration with warranty and in the said warranty period, if any problem/defects in the vehicle, the same has to be cured by giving proper service with free of cost.  But, here in this case, as evident from the documents produced by both the parties OPs have charged huge sum for repair charges in all a sum of Rs.1,41,606/- as per the Tax Invoice and the complainant has paid Rs.25,200/- towards towing from Hubli to Bangalore as per Ex.A-3, the same is liable to be paid by the Ops.  The act of the OPs in showing the negligence in providing necessary repairs to the vehicle of the complainant is a deficiency of service. The complainant has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that, it is just and proper to award Rs.1,41,606/- i.e., the repair charges,  Rs.25,000/- towards towing charges and Rs.5,000/- being the costs of the proceedings.  With this, we answer Point No.1 partly in the Affirmative. 

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

It is ordered that the complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby allowed.

It is ordered that, the Ops are hereby jointly and severely directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,606/- to the complainant towards repair charges, Rs.25,000/- towards towing charges and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony in all a sum of Rs.1,76,606/-  along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 25/11/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

On behalf of OP No.2, Sri. G.N. Narasimhan, Deputy General Manager has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Extended warranty card
02	Ex-A-2:-	Service sheets
03	Ex-A-3:-	Cash receipt dated 28.07.2015 of Xn Towings
04	Ex-A-4:-	Tax Invoice dated 13.10.2015
05	Ex-A-5:-	Repair Order dated 29.07.2015
06	Ex-A-6:-	Mail sent by the complainant dated 25.07.2015
07	Ex-A-7:-	Letter written by the brother of complainant
08	Ex.A-8:-	Vehicle History
09	Ex.A-9:-	Office Copy of legal notice dated 16.11.2015
10	Ex.A-10:-	Returned Postal Cover
11	Ex.A-11:-	Returned Postal acknowledgement

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-A-1:-	CD
02	Ex-B-2:-	Service vehicle acceptance form/repair order
03	Ex-B-3:-	e-mail by complainant requesting to give discount
04	Ex-B-4:-	Tax Invoice dated 14.09.2015
05	Ex-B-5:-	Service vehicle acceptance form/repair order

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**