Kerala

Idukki

CC/129/2019

Saji Varghese - Complainant(s)

Versus

TV Sundrum Iyenyear pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23.6.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.129/2019

Between

Complainant : Saji Varghese, S/o. Varghese,

Valummel House,

Kadamakuzhy P.O.,

Kattappana, Idukki.

(By Adv: C.K. Babu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar

& Sons Pvt. Ltd.,

KGEES Building, Erattayar Road,

Kattappana, Idukki – 685 508.

Represented by the Manager.

2. Renault

Head Office, ASV Ramana Towers,

# 37-38, 4^th Floor,

Venkatanarayana Road,

T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017

Represented by the Manager.

(Both by Adv: Shiji Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

1. Complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986. Case of the complainant is briefly narrated hereunder :

2. Complainant had purchased a 2019 model Duster car with Engine No.K9KR856E034249, on 28.5.2019 from 1^st opposite party namely, TVS Iyengar (cont....2)

- 2 -

& Sons Pvt. Ltd., at Kattappana. The vehicle was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party, namely, Renault India Ltd., All window glasses excepting the front wind screen were of the year 2018, manufacturing year of glasses is embossed upon them. 1^st opposite party had concealed this fact from complainant and after temporarily registering the vehicle, delivered the same to him. Thereafter complainant had registered the vehicle with R.T.O., Idukki, on 13.6.2019. During the course of registration, complainant had noticed that window glasses mentioned above were of the year 2018. He had immediately contacted 1^st opposite party and requested him to rectify the defect. 1^st opposite party, however, has denied the request so made on 24.6.2019. 1^st opposite party had, before sale, made the complainant believe that the vehicle proposed to be purchased by him was of the year 2019 and all its parts were of the same year. Believing 1^st opposite party, complainant had purchased the vehicle, which, however was fitted with window glasses made in 2018. Complainant submits that this is unfair trade practice. In the event of an accident or resale, value of the vehicle will be substantially decreased. Opposite parties were bound to provide the vehicle with glasses which were manufactured in 2019. Due to rejection of complainant’s request for refitting by 2019 model glasses, he had suffered mental agony also. Hence complainant prays for a direction against opposite parties to replace old window glasses of the vehicle with those manufactured in 2019 and to pay Rs.25,000/- to petitioner towards mental agony and legal expenses.

3. First opposite party has filed written version refuting the claim of complainant. Its case is briefly discussed here under:

4. According to 1^st opposite party, complainant has no cause of action against it. Allegations in the complaint are flimsy and amount to abuse of process of law. No unfair trade practice was resorted to by 1^st opposite party. There is no deficiency in service upon its part either. 1^st opposite party has not made any representation to complainant that the vehicle was fitted with window glasses of the year 2019. 1^st opposite party had delivered the vehicle in the same condition it had received the same from 2^nd opposite party. No alterations or extra fittings were done by 1^st opposite party. Model of the vehicle is reckoned by chassis number given by manufacturer to Motor Vehicle Department. 1^st opposite party has no control over the same. It has not made any undue profit by misrepresenting facts to complainant. 1^st opposite party has no liability for (cont....3)

- 3 -

refitting the window glasses of the vehicle. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation or costs. On the other hand, complaint is to be dismissed with cost of 1^st opposite party, who has been unnecessarily implicated in this case.

4. Second opposite party has filed a detailed written version. Its contentions are briefly discussed here under :

5. 2^nd opposite party contends that facts mentioned in the complaint do not constitute a consumer dispute as defined under the old Act. There is no concrete evidence to support allegations of manufacturing defect of the vehicle in question and nor there is any material evidence to show that there was deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. All factual assertions contained in the complaint are denied and only those facts consistent with the written version are to be taken as admitted. Any fact in the complaint is not to be has admitted even if it has not been specifically traversed or mentioned in the written version. 2^nd opposite party further submits that complainant had purchased a Renault Duster vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-06-J-8999 from 1^st opposite party. Vehicle was supplied to 1^st opposite party by 2^nd opposite party on principal to principal basis. Year of manufacturing of various parts of vehicle have no bearing upon manufacturing date of the vehicle. Post manufacture of body shell and installation of engine, vehicle is transferred to a facility wherein other non-moving parts such as seats, glasses, lights, central console are fitted to the body of vehicle. Since the vehicle requires several parts to be installed upon it, apart from moving mechanical parts, it is possible that non-moving parts may be of a different year. Moreover, such parts do not compromise operation or safety of the vehicle in any way. Though these are procured from 3^rd party vendors they are subjected to strict quality measures set by Government. Complainant had wrongly alleged that year of manufacturing printed upon the window glasses is to be considered as manufacturing year of the vehicle. Going by Section 2(1)(g) of old Act, there is no deficiency in service, even if it is presumed that the facts mentioned in the complaint are true. Complaint is not maintainable under law or upon facts. Insurance certificate copy and invoice of the vehicle clearly indicate that the manufacturing year of the impugned vehicle is February 2019. There is no issue of any defect in the vehicle. Complaint entirely rests upon presumptions and assumptions. Therefore, it is to be dismissed with costs. (cont....4)

- 4 -

6. After filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to take steps to both sides. No oral evidence was tendered by complainant. It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant that there is no oral evidence from his side. Documents produced by complainant are invoice copy pertaining to purchase of vehicle and copy of it’s insurance certificate.

7. Though opposite parties were also given repeated opportunities to give evidence, they have not adduced any evidence. Hence evidence was closed and case was posted for hearing. Able counsel for complainant has addressed oral arguments. No contentions were addressed by opposite parties. Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether the vehicle purchased by complainant from 1^st opposite party, which is manufactured by 2^nd opposite party, is defective ?

2) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get window glasses of vehicle replaced with glasses manufactured in 2019?

4) Whether complainant is entitled for the compensation prayed for ?

5) Costs?

8. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that opposite parties have not specifically denied pleadings addressed that window glasses excepting front windscreen of the vehicle were manufactured in 2018. Documents produced would show that the vehicle was purchased by complainant from 1^st opposite party in May 2019. Year of manufacturing is also shown as 2019. However, year of manufacturing imprinted upon the glass windows of the vehicle shows that aforesaid window glasses were manufactured in 2018. Fitting window glasses manufactured earlier in a new vehicle will amount to deficiency in service. Due to this, resale value of the vehicle will be considerably reduced. In an unfortunate event of an accident taking place involving the vehicle, insurance money for the glasses will carry depreciation more than that of other (cont....5)

• 5 -

parts of vehicle as the glasses are older than the manufacturing year of the vehicle. Counsel again contended that there is no specific denial in the written statement of opposite party to the effect that the glasses were not of the year 2018, hence this fact is to be taken as admitted. Since complainant has succeeded in proving that window glasses of the vehicle were older than manufacturing year, he is entitled to get those replaced with glasses manufactured in 2019, along with compensation and cost.

9. We have anxiously gone through the pleadings submitted by both sides and arguments submitted by the complainant. In so far as age of window glasses is concerned, we do not think that there is any specific admission of opposite parties that window glasses of the vehicle excepting front wind screen were of the year 2018. Complainant’s counsel has contended that this fact is not specifically denied by opposite parties in their pleadings and hence should be taken as admitted. These contentions are not at all meritorious. Best evidence in this regard is the vehicle itself, as complainant has stated that year of manufacture is embossed upon window glasses themselves. Vehicle had left the manufacturing plant and dealers premises much earlier to the date of it’s registration with RTO by complainant, the day when complainant had noticed that window glasses were of the previous year. Obviously opposite parties were not in a position either to admit or deny whether year of manufacture was embossed upon the vehicle and the year so embossed. Since they were not in possession of best evidence in this regard their failure to deny the said fact cannot be taken as admission of the same. Burden was upon the complainant to substantiate his contentions as the very vehicle was with him. It would have been easier for the complainant to produce the vehicle or to get it inspected by an Advocate Commissioner and to obtain a report showing manufacturing year of the glasses upon it. In the least, he could have easily photographed the glass windows and proved what was the manufacturing year embossed upon them. As far as copy of invoice and insurance certificate are concerned, these do not specifically mention manufacturing year of window glasses of the vehicle as such. It is pertinent to note that registration certificate of the vehicle and copy of the same has not been produced by the complainant. Considering all these facts, we are of the view that even if there is no specific denial with regard to the manufacturing year of the glasses, the fact cannot be presumed as admitted. We have also noticed that 2^nd opposite party has stated in its written version that all facts contained in the complaint which are not specifically (cont...6)

- 6 -

admitted by it are denied. Thus there is denial of case set up by complainant to the extent possible by opposite parties.

10. 2^nd opposite party, has further pleaded that except the chassis and engine, other non-moving parts of the vehicle are outsourced from 3^rd party vendors and used in the vehicle after subjecting them to strict quality check. It can be that 1 or 2 or the components like seats, lights or glasses were manufactured earlier, much before assembling of the vehicle begins. In the instant case, vehicle was admittedly purchased only on 28.5.2019, i.e., first part of the year 2019. Complainant would only allege that the glasses fitted upon windows were of 2018, which was 6 months earlier to the manufacturing year of the vehicle. Even if it is presumed that the glasses were of the year 2018, we are of the view that this will not constitute a manufacturing defector deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Manufacturing date is reckoned on the day the process is completed in manufacturing/assembly plant and the vehicle is ready to be plied. Date of manufacture of components constituting non moving body parts cannot be considered as date of manufacture of the vehicle. As pointed out in written version of O.P.1 chassis number on the vehicle supported by intimation of manufacturer indicates month and year of manufacture. R.C. book or it’s copy which is relevant here has not been produced by complainant.

11. There is no evidence to prove that 1^st opposite party had misrepresented anything about the year of manufacture of window glasses to complainant at the time of purchase. Complainant has not entered the box to depose about the same. Allegations that, there was misrepresentation, as such, therefore, remain to be proved.

12. For this reasons, we find that there is no defect in the goods or deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled for replacement of window glasses manufactured in 2019, compensation or costs as prayed by him. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

13. Point Nos.4 and 5 are considered together:

In view of our findings on point Nos.1 to 3, we further find that complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.

(cont....7)

- 7 -

12. Resultantly, this complaint is dismissed, considering the circumstances, without costs.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 18^th day of January, 2022

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX : Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT