DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the   22^nd day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member        Date of filing: 09.08.2019                                                                                   

CC/209/2019

1. M.D.Baby

Residing at Charis, Manali

Palakkad

2. Merin Sebastian

    D/o M.D.Baby

    Residing at Charis, Manali

Palakkad                                                                -         Complainant

(By Adv. P.Sreeprakash)

                                                           V/s

1. Managing Director

    Nissan Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

5^th Floor, Orchid Business Block

Sohna Road, Sector – 48

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 004

(By Adv. P.Vatsala)

2. Customer Relation Manager

    Ramani Motors Pvt. Ltd.

    No.95/12, Perundurai Road, Sengodampallam

    Thindai Post, Erode – 638 012

    (By Adv. G.Ananthakrishnan)

3. Customer Relation Manager

    Pinacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

    NH 47, Mannuthy Bye-Pass

    Kuttanelloor Post

Thrissur – 680 014                                                  -         Opposite parties

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief 

      1^st complainant purchased a vehicle NISSAN TERRANO XVD-THP PRE car for 2^nd complainant, his daughter on 18/11/2014 from the 3^rd opposite party.  After few months, the complainant noticed some problems with the use of the key of the vehicle and clutch system and he approached their customer service centre at Palakkad.  But the technicians were giving some excuses and finally the complainants were forced to use the spare key.

          On 29/03/2018, vehicle became off road at Erode and the complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party.  They took the vehicle and returned after repair on 13/04/2018.  Even though extended warranty was in force at that time, they charged Rs. 61,335/- for the repair.

          In May 2018, again the vehicle became off road while using it in Palakkad, and 3^rd opposite party’s technician inspected the vehicle and found the battery of the vehicle in low condition.  As per their direction, the 1^st complainant replaced the battery with a new one.

          The vehicle became off-road at Kottayam in the month of May 2018 itself and the authorised service centre of opposite parties expressed their helplessness to attend the complaint and it was brought to 3^rd opposite party. 

          But there was no proper response from them and the complainant took the vehicle to their service centre at Cochin.  Eventhough they changed the key system and returned the vehicle on 23/06/2018, the problems in the vehicle persisted.

          On 09/08/2018, the vehicle was tugged from Palakkad to Cochin service centre and the vehicle was kept in their workshop for a period of one month to complete the repairs and services.  The 1^st complainant requested the company to send an expert of the company to find out actual complaints of the vehicle.  Even after repeated requests, the company did not care to attend the request of the 1^st complainant and redress the grievance.

The repeated complaints occurred in the vehicle even after many major repairs clearly shows that the vehicle has serious manufacturing defect.  The manufacturing defect of the vehicle had caused hardships and loss to the complainants.  Complainant spent Rs.1,05,196/- towards repairing charges and a sum of Rs. 35,000/- towards tugging the vehicle.  Further due to the defect in the vehicle complainant had to hire vehicles from outside causing additional financial liability to the tune of Rs. 85,000/-  Since the defects in the vehicle occurred during the extended warranty period, the respondents are liable to replace the vehicle with new one.  Complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice on 11/01/2019 to replace the vehicle with a new one for which the opposite parties send reply stating false allegation.  So the complainant approached the Commission for getting an order

1. Directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one.
2. To pay Rs. 2,25,196/- towards damage caused to the complainant and to pay 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered.

2.   After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared and filed version.  3^rd opposite party did not appear even after the receipt of notice and they were set ex-parte.

3.   The 1^st opposite party in their version admitted the purchase of Nissan Terrano XVD-THP PRE on 18/11/2014, in the name of the 2^nd complainant from 3^rd opposite party with extended warranty valid upto November 2018.  Their contention is that as per the Dealership agreement between 1^st opposite party and Dealer/Service centre, the service centres are liable to carry out sales and services of the vehicle through their service centres and 1^st opposite party has no role in this.  Further the communications are made only between the complainant and 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and the vehicle has been repaired and rectified by them.  There is no negligence/deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and they are not in any manner connected with the sales and service of the vehicle.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

4.   2^nd opposite party denied the entire allegations in the complaint.  They contended that on 29/03/2018 the vehicle owned by the 2^nd complainant became off road at Erode and was brought to their workshop, they received the vehicle in towing condition with breakdown tow vehicle.  The opposite parties inspected the vehicle and found that the clutch has worn out completely and it was communicated to the customer with complete detailed estimate.  Eventhough the vehicle was under extended warranty, the wear & tear parts are not covered as per policy warranty conditions and it was communicated to the customer clearly and the work was done with customer approval.  After the repair, vehicle was delivered to the customer in good condition.  The wearing out of the clutch kit can only be due to use and misuse of the clutch.  If the vehicle is not driven properly, it can happen.  Riding the vehicle with the leg placed on the clutch can also result in the abnormal wear & tear of clutch kit.  After repair, the vehicle was delivered to the customer who received it being fully satisfied with the repairs and the bills were paid voluntarily.  There is no deficiency on service on the part of this opposite party.  The complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that his vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs?
4. Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.

6.   Complainant did not file proof affidavit even after several chances being given.  1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked from their side.  2^nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Ext. B1 to B3 marked from their side.  Marking of Ext. B1 to B3 are objected to on the ground that they are photocopies.  As we are not bound by the Evidence Act; photocopies are admissible in evidence unless the other party has a case that they are forged or fabricated.  So Objection overruled.

7.   Point No: 1

      1^st complainant’s grievance is that he purchased a Nissan Terrano car for the 2^nd complainant, his daughter from 3^rd opposite party with extended warranty valid upto November 2018.  After some time, he noticed some problems with the use of the key of the vehicle and clutch system and he approached 3^rd opposite party’s service centre at Palakkad.  The technicians did not cure the defect and finally he had to use spare key.  On 29/03/2018, the vehicle became off road at Erode and the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party.  They returned it after repair on 13/04/2018 and charged Rs. 61,335/- eventhough the extended warranty was in force.  On May 2018, the vehicle again became off road at Palakkad and 3^rd opposite party’s technician after inspection opined that the battery of the vehicle is low and the complainant changed the battery.  Again in the same month, vehicle became off road at Earattupetta and the authorised service centre of opposite parties at Kottayam could not do anything; the complainant took the vehicle to 3^rd opposite party.  As there was no proper response from them, he took the vehicle to their Cochin service centre and they changed the key system.  But again the problems in the vehicle persisted.

          Since the vehicle was not in motorable condition and as there was no proper response from 3^rd opposite party, the vehicle was tugged from Palakkad to Cochin to EVM car service, Cochin and the vehicle is kept there for a period of one month to complete the repairs and services.

          On 29/08/2018, the 1^st complainant send a letter to the company, 1^st opposite party narrating the incidents and requested to send an expert to find out the actual complaints of the vehicle.  But there was no response from their part.  The complainant alleges that the continuous complaint in the vehicle is due to the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

8.   The 1^st opposite party contends that they have a principal to principal relationship with 2^nd opposite party and they are the manufacturer of the vehicle and has no role in after sale service and it is the responsibility of the dealership.

9.   The 2^nd opposite party contends that on 29/03/2018, the vehicle became off road at Erode and brought to their workshop.  They inspected the vehicle and found that the clutch was worn out completely. Eventhough vehicle was under extended warranty, the wear & tear parts are not covered by the warranty and it is communicated to the complainant and the work was done with his approval.  The issue can due to misuse or improper driving.  After repair, the 2^nd opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant who received it with full satisfaction.

10. The 3^rd opposite party, dealer did not appear before the Commission even after the receipt of notice and they were set ex-parte. 

11. The complainant did not file proof affidavit even after several chances being given and no documents were marked from their side.  Complainant did not move any application for the appointment of an expert to inspect the vehicle and find out whether there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  So the complainant had failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  Point No:1 is decided accordingly.

12. Points 2 to 4

      No deficiency in service can be attributed on the opposite parties in the absence of cogent evidence.  In the absence of evidence by way of proof affidavit, supporting documents and expert report we are not inclined to allow the prayer in the complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  

Pronounced in open court on this the 22^nd day of February, 2023.

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                                President

                                                                                   Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member 

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                       Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant - NIL

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties –

Ext.B1 – Breakdown Down service report form dated 29/03/2018.

Ext.B2 – New Vehicle Warranty Information.

Ext.B3 – Repair order copy dated 30/03/2018.

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL

Cost-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.