Kerala

Palakkad

CC/54/2022

Prabhakaran C - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nodal Officer - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2023

 

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                

              : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member           Date of filing: 01/04/2022                            

     CC/54/2022

Prabhakaran.C

Chembottuthodi

Perumudiyur Post

Pattambi Via

Palakkad – 679 303                                                         -    Complainant

(Party in person)

V/s

 

1. The Nodal Officer

   Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

    ASV Ramana Towers

    37 & 38, Venkatanarayana Road

    T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

    (By Adv. Hema.R)

 

2. Mr. Shahir Bin Hameed

    Customer Relationship Manager

    EVM Automotive (I) Pvt. Ltd.

    Airpra Schol Padi, Thirurkad – via

    Aripra Post

Malappuram - 679 321

 

3. M/s EVM Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

    Opposite Puthoor Temple

    Puthiyangadi Post

   Calicut – 673 021                                                            -   Opposite parties

    (2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties by Adv. Maneesha.R)

    (Opposite parties were set ex-party during the course of  proceedings)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      The complainant purchased a Datsun Redi-go car on 18/07/2018 from the 3^rd opposite party for Rs. 3,92,936/-  The vehicle was having a standard warranty period of 2 years and the complainant availed the extended warranty for 3 years by paying Rs. 8,100/- additionally.  The car has been having break down problem and this has been happening very frequently and due to this he along with his family got stuck up at various locations on 08/11/2018, 11/11/2018 causing physical strain and mental agony.  When contacted the 3^rd opposite party, they informed that the software of the car is to be updated with latest version which they are yet to receive from the manufacturer.  Since the 3^rd opposite party did not respond, the complainant contacted “Nissan Customer Care” and as instructed by them the car was dropped at M/s Pinnacle Motors, Thrissur for checking and updating the software. After a few days of updating the software, the car started showing the same problem.  The vehicle was again taken to M/s Pinnacle Motors and as advised by them the complainant had to replace the battery by paying Rs. 4,400/- on 25/10/2020.  The car developed the same complaint on 27/11/2021 in the parking slot of a hyper market, from where the car had to be towed to the garage of 3^rd opposite party and 2 relays were replaced as advised by them.  On 24/12/2021 the petrol hose of the vehicle burst dropping petrol on the road and the vehicle had to be towed to the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant had to pay Rs. 20,000/- for repairing this as the warranty do not cover this (as informed by 3^rd opposite party).

          On 02/01/2022, it was found that the LED lights (3 out of 6) were not working and on 01/03/2022, the air conditioner stopped cooling and the 3^rd opposite party managed to repair the air conditioner by putting an old relay.  They demanded Rs. 3,800/- for replacing the LED lights as it is not covered under the extended warranty.  According to the complainant the car is having serious manufacturing defects and hence not road worthy.  So he filed this complaint seeking a total relief of Rs. 3,08,500/- towards mental agony, financial loss, etc.

 

 2.  Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties did not enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.  The 3^rd opposite party, though entered appearance did not file version within the statutory period.  Hence their version was rejected and case was proceeded ex-parte.                                            

3.   As per the IA 434/23, an Expert Commission was appointed, but the Commissioner did not file his report so far.  Though this Commission ordered to issue show cause notice to the Expert Commissioner, the complainant did not take any steps and therefore warrant  was recalled.          

4.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A11 as evidence.  Ext. A1 is the tax invoice for the vehicle purchased, Ext. A2 is the certificate cum invoice for the extended warranty, Ext. A3 is the invoice for the new battery purchased, Ext. A4 is the tax invoice for battery replacement issued by Pinnacle Motor works Pvt. Ltd., Ext. A5 to A9 are the tax invoices for Rs. 4,123/-, Rs. 1,374/-, Rs. 2,008/-, Rs. 264/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  Ext. A10 is the e-mail from Nissan Customer Care, Ext. A11 is the portion containing  “What is not covered” in the warranty.                     

5.   In the absence of any counter pleadings from the side of opposite parties, this Commission is left with only the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documents marked by him as evidence to draw any conclusion as to whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties.

          From the Ext. A2 marked, it is clear that the extended warranty is valid upto 19/07/2023. The complainant’s allegation is that the replacement of battery and LED bulbs were not covered under extended warranty.  Ext. A11 clearly shows the parts which are not covered under the extended warranty and battery and bulbs, etc. are not covered under the warranty.  Hence allegation is not sustainable.  Further, in the case of battery, the complainant himself had purchased the new battery from another retail shop and given for replacement without raising any objection at that time.  Ext. A4, A6 & A9 are bills showing discounts on account of warranty provided on various occasions for warranty covered items. Which shows that the warranty benefits have already been provided to the complainant in eligible cases.

          Regarding the frequent complaints of the car due to manufacturing defect, though an Expert Commissioner was appointed to evaluate that, the Commissioner did not give his report so far.  When this Commission ordered to issue show cause notice to the Expert Commissioner, the complainant informed that he is not interested to proceed further in the matter.  Hence in the absence of Expert Commission report, we are not in a position to reach any conclusion in this regard.

          However, from the incidents narrated in the proof affidavit read along with the documents adduced as evidence, there is every reasonable cause to come to a studied conclusion that the complainant was put to lot of hardship on account of complaints such as frequent break down, petrol leakage, etc. of the vehicle by which he had to suffer a lot by way of mental agony, stress and financial loss. Thus the complainant has succeeded in proving a prima face case in his favour.

 

6.   In the result, the complaint is partly allowed ordering the following reliefs

1. The 1^st & 3^rd opposite party companies are liable jointly to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, etc.
2. The 1^st & 3^rd opposite party companies are also liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as cost.
3. No liability in cast on opposite party No.2.
4. Opposite party No.3 shall initially pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant, which the opposite party 3 may get reimbursed from opposite party 1 in their course of business.

     (5) The opposite party 3 shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

      Pronounced in open court on this the 8^th day of June, 2023.

 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  : Invoice for car purchase dated 18/07/2018.

Ext. A2  : Certificate cum Invoice for extended warranty dated 20/07/2018.

Ext. A3  : Invoice for battery purchase dated 30/10/2020.

Ext. A4  : Invoice dated 31/10/2020 by Pinnacle Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A5  : Invoice dated 10/08/2021 by EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A6  : Invoice dated 30/11/2021 by EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A7  : Invoice dated 27/12/2021 by EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A8  : Invoice dated 03/03/2022 by EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A9  : Invoice dated 26/08/2022 by EVM Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

Ext. A10: Copy of e-mail from Nissan Customer care.

Ext. A11: Copy of extended warranty booklet.

 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

Cost:  Rs. 50,000/-

 

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.