DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  9^th day of December, 2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt.Vidya A., Member             

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                 Date of Filing: 14/11/2017    

     CC/163/2017

Vijayan C

C-8, Santhi Colony,

Chandranagar, Palakkad – 678 007                          -           Complainant

(By Adv. A.P. Udayakumar)

                                                                                    Vs

1. The Managing Director,

       M/s. Nissan Motors India Pvt.Ltd.

      5^th Floor, Orchid Business Park,

Sahna Road, Sector 48,

Gurgaon – 122 004, Haryana.

2. The Customer Relations Manager,

       Pinnacle Nissan, Pinnacle Motor Works (P) Ltd.,

NH47, Mannuthy Byepass,

Kuttanallur  P.O., Trichur.

3.  The Regional Manager,

        Pinnacle Motor (P) Ltd.,

 Coimbatore Road, Kunnathurmedu P.O.,

 Palakkad.

4. The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

PLI Branch, Soorya Complex,

Mission High School Junction, T.B. Road,

Palakkad.                                                         -                       Opposite parties

            (OP1 by Adv.M/s.R.Manikandan & P.Valsala,

             OP2 by Adv.M/s.Sumish K Abraham & K.Dhananjayan

             OP3 Exparte & OP4 by Adv.P.Ratnavally & Kiran G Raj)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. In brief, the complaint pleadings are that the complainant purchased a Nissan Micra car on 26/08/2015. During the course of usage, the car underwent service during April, 2017. On 03/08/2017, while passing through Chalakkudi, the car got gutted down. The fire occurred due to a sack which caught fire after getting itself attached to the exhaust of the car and spreading of the fire to the fuel tank. The cause of fire occurred owing to violation of safety protocols on the part of 1^st opposite party. The manufacturer and dealer failed to give any satisfactory reply for the malady. The 4^th opposite party valued the vehicle at Rs. 5,50,000/- and settled the claim at Rs. 4,74,000/-. The 2^nd opposite party charged Rs. 10,000/- as charges for preparation of estimate and Rs. 5250/- as demurrage.

The complaint is filed seeking replacement of car, amounts expended and for compensation and costs from the opposite parties.

2.              O.P.1 filed version challenging the authority of this Commission, in view of an alternate remedy available before the MACT. The ARAI/ICAT had approved the design of the prototype of the vehicle and the complaint was only liable to be dismissed.

The 2^nd opposite party filed version challenging the authority of the signatory of the memorandum of complainant and other pleadings. The signatory, Sri. Balakrishnan is not competent to sign the complaint for and on behalf of the complainant, Vijayan. As no specific pleadings are made against the 2^nd opposite party, they sought for exoneration.

Opposite party 3 was set exparte.

The 4^th opposite party also filed version justifying the method in which they had arrived at the valuation.

3.         Eventhough the complainant has filed rejoinder to the versions filed by the opposite parties, as there is no procedure empowering the complainant to file rejoinder, the rejoinder is not being relied upon.

4.         The following issues arise for consideration.

1. Whether the signatory is competent to conduct the complainant for and on behalf of the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant had proved that there is any manufacturing defect on the part of the 1^st opposite party.?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties 2 and 3?
4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party 4?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

5.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavit of the Power of Attorney of the complainant and Exhibits A1 to A11. Marking of documents were objected to on the ground they were photocopies. Since this Commission is not bound by tenets of Indian Evidence Act and in view of the absence of any allegation of concoction of any documents, the said objection is overruled.

Contesting opposite parties filed proof affidavits. Opposite party 1 marked Ext. B1 and O.P.4 marked Exhibits B2 to B5.

Issue No. 1

6.         Eventhough complainant is named Vijayan, the entire pleadings and proof affidavit are seen signed by one C. Balakrishnan. There is no pleading whatsoever in the memorandum of complaint regarding the status of C. Balakrishnan vis a vis Vijayan. But the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of the authorized signatory is produced and marked as Ext.A11. 

Hence, we hold that  the signatory is  authorized, empowered and  competent to conduct this complaint for and on behalf of the de-facto complainant.

            Issue no. 2

7.                     It is the case of the complainant that the sack happened to get drawn by the exhaust of the car in view of the manufacturing / design defect.  The complainant, even after the staunch contesting of this pleading by the first opposite party, has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the design is faulty and therefore susceptible to danger.

                                    Having failed to prove any manufacturing defect, the plea of complainant with regard to manufacturing defect also fails.

.           Issue No. 3

8.         Opposite parties 2 & 3 are the dealers. The complainants grievance is that they have availed demurrage and cost for inspection from him amounting to Rs.15,250/-, as evidenced by Ext. A10. He has also sought for repayment of this amount. But the complainant has not proved as to how levy of these amounts would tantamount to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.

                        Having failed to prove as to how levying of demurrage and cost of inspection is a deficiency in service, issue No.3 also cannot be held in favour of the complainant. 

            Issue No.  4

9.         Even though the complainant grieves that the valuation carried out by the valuer of  the 4^th opposite party is not proper and that there is undervaluation, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the gutted car would fetch any higher price.  Further he has also not made any claim as against opposite party No.4 in the relief portion of memorandum of complaint. 

Resultantly we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to make out any cogent case as against opposite party No.4.

            Issue No.  5

10.       Apropos the findings in issue nos. 1 to 4 we hold that there are no merits in the complaint.

The CC is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 9^th  day of  December, 2022.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -    Copy of RC of car bearing No.KL09-AJ-8248

Ext.A2 series – Photocopies of 3 photographs of gutted car

Ext.A3  –   Copy of certificate dated 5/8/17  issued from Chalakkudy Police Station

Ext.A4  –   Copy of email communication dated  5/8/2017

Ext.A5  –    Copy of e mail communication dated 9/8/17

Ext.A6  –    Copy of email communication dated 16/8/17

Ext.A7  –    Copy of communication dated  16/8/2017 issued by complainant

Ext.A8  –    Copy of email communication dated 9/12/17

Ext.A9  –    Copy of insurance policy receipt

Ext.10 –     Copy of receipt dated 12/10/2017.

Ext.A11  -    Copy of Power of Attorney dated 16/8/17

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1- Copy of new vehicle warranty information.

Ext.B2 – Copy of Pvt. Car package policy

Ext.B3 – Copy of Opinion dated 16/09/2017

Ext.B4 – Copy of Office note dated 19/10/2017

Ext.B5 – Copy of Consent letter issued by the complainant

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

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.