State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kiran Parasa vs Renault India Pvt. Ltd. on 10 October, 2023
Date of filing : 26.10.2018
Date of Disposal:10.10.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATE: 10.10.2023
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.467/2018 Kiran Parasa S/o Satyanarayana Prasad Aged about 38 years, r/a No.15, 7th Main, II cross, Singapura layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-97 ...Complainant/s (By Shri, T.C.Satish Kumar Advocate for the Complainant)
-Versus-
1. Renault India Pvt.Ltd.
Rep. by its Chairman, At Plot No.1, SIPCOT Industrial Estate Mattur post, Sriperumbudur, Tamilnadu-602105 ...(Ex-partee) 2
2. Renualt India Pvt.Ltd Rep.by its Managing Director, Head office, ASV Ramana towers, No.37-38, IV floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017 (By Shri, D.N.Arun Kumar, Advocate for OP No.2)
3. Renault Palace Orchards Trident Auto Enterprises (P) Ltd., By Regional Manager, Redg. Office at:
No.210/2, Upper Palace Orchrds, Sadashivnagar, Bellary road, Bangalore-560080
4. Trident Auto Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.
By General Manager, No.76/1, Allalasandra, Opp.Jakkur Flying Training Centre, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064 (By Shri, Prashanth.B.K, Advocate for the OP No.3 & 4)
5. Nissan Renault Finance Services India Pvt.Ltd., By its Manager, ASV Ramana Towers, V floor, Old No.37 &38, New No.52, Venkatanarayana road, T.Nagar, Chennai-60017 .....Opposite party/s (By Shri, Suresh.V, Advocate for the OP No.5) 3 //ORDER// BY Mrs. M. DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER This is the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the deficiency in service in selling a car with a manufacturing defect and to direct OPs to refund the entire sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to him towards cost of the said Car including the Road Tax, Repayment of loan Installments and for the consequential loss caused to him for not used the said car to reach his goal, along with the interest at 2% per month and the cost of the entire proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is stated below:
The complainant submits that the opposite parties have given vast publicity as if the opposite party No.1 is renowned vehicle manufacturing company with its Head office at opposite party No.2 and its Regional office at opposite party No.3 and its Company vehicles authorized service centre at opposite No.4 and the Financier of the opposite parties 1 to 4 at opposite party No.5. With all the aforesaid chain link of the opposite parties, 4 have established their business under one shade to sell the said company vehicles to the public under the label of Renault company manufacturing valuable and good condition vehicle etc. The complainant being young person and as one among the sufferer of the complainant Renault Duster new Car OM 4.7.2018 at the opposite parties tremor publicity.
[
3. The complainant further states that opposite parties posing themselves as reputed Company/Enterprises, Representatives/Financiers and mess the minds of the public by giving false by describing the so called "Renault Duster" Car as Super quality vehicle and duped the public like complainant by provoking to purchase the Renault Duster Car as an exceptional vehicle etc. The complainant specifically alleges that opposite party No.3 has sold defective vehicle/Car of Renault Duster and caused life threat and risk on using the said vehicle by the complainant upon huge investment. The complainant further alleges that opposite parties have duped the complainant by selling a defective Car, which was subjected to major repairs every now and then with replacement of major parts of the said Car, with further complaint of sudden steering lock while under use and thereby he was afraid of his life upon using the said Car and thereby stopped usage since 9.15 A.M of 11.9.2018. Further on the serious problems cropped up in the vehicle for the deficiency in the process of manufacturing the vehicle, the detail 5 History of the Renault Car sold by the respondent No.3 to complainant is mentioned below.
4. The complainant states that he was prompted to purchase Renault Duster RxZ ATM 110 ps. Car from the opposite party No.3, which was virtually delivered a defective Car of Duster Model of Pearl White Colour bearing Chasis No:MEEHSRCFKJ4005705 with Engine No.E026476 bearing Reg.No.KA-04-MV-0621 on 4.7.2018 and without disclosing the manufacturing defects in the Car, the custody of the said vehicle was given to the complainant on 7.7.2018 and registered the same on 9.7.2018.
5. Thereby the complainant started using Renault Duster Car since 7.7.2018. He being an Engineer in Computer Science and is qualified in driving vehicles by holding valid driving license since the year 2006. The complainant was earlier owning I-10 Car and using the same for his routine work with fond hope of setting up his own software in guiding the tourists to plan their Itenarary has purchased the said Renault Duster Car which was found to be not moving stoppage in traffic/road and upon enquiry with the Sales consultant of the opposite party No.3 has instructed him to apply brake and release to ease out the problem as it is a new vehicle. And as such the complainant on the words of the said Sales person has managed so, for few 6 days and continued to use the said Car with same problem. And on 11.8.2018 at about 7.30 P.M., the said Car was halted with huge jerk even in slow moving traffic and wherein the Sales person advised the complainant to station the Car for short period and to restart. Thus the Car was driven home, for being found such virulent in new vehicle purchased by investing huge money for his usage.
[
6. Complainant submits that, on further enquiry with the said Salesman/respondent No.3 he has advised the complainant as it would be set right after subjecting the vehicle for first service. Further on 15.8.2018, at about 6.30 p.m while the complainant was driving his said car near Mantri Mall junction of Malleshwaram, Bangalore, it was halted in sudden jerk, and same continued frequently in short distance with burning smell. As there was vehicular traffic, the traffic police constable assisted the complainant to park his vehicle on road side on smelling the burning foul and to overcome traffic jam. At that juncture, the complainant once again reported the same to the Sales person of opposite party No.3, who advised him to secure the vehicle for immediate service and for which the complainant asked the service personnel to arrange for towing his Car. And upon the refusal of the respondent No.3 representative to tow the car, he was forced to park the said car in parking lot of Mantri Mall for about three hours upstill cooling down of his 7 vehicle. It is submitted that the parking lot assistants in Mantri Mall have also sensed the burning smell on parking the vehicle. Thereby the complainant of late drove the car to his house in slow motion on keeping open the window glasses, for his family members were accompanied.
7. Further it is submitted that, the indecent atmosphere of the said car in traffic, was forced to rush to the Service station of opposite party No.4 in his Car on 16.8.2018, since the time was riped for first service. The complainant has made note of the complaint on the jobcard, which fact was also informed to Customer care. The service personnel having noticed the said complaint, has attended major repairs like replacement of Fly wheel, Pressure plate, Clutch plate and also conducted air bleeding procedure due to air blockage by keeping the said Car with opposite party No.4 from 16.8.2018 upstill 31.8.2018 for over 15 days. The complainant having noticed the aforesaid major replaced parts in the first service, has started observing the inrooted problems upon taking delivery of the said vehicle. And it is submitted that it was very much upset to complainant as a set back for usage of car and alarmed the opposite party No.4 to make arrangement for exchange of new vehicle. But the opposite party No.4 representatives have convinced the complainant by assuring as everything would be fine in future for being replaced the major parts like Fly wheel, Pressure plate, 8 clutch plate and for conducted Air Bleeding procedure by keeping the vehicle in service station for a Fortnight. The complainant further alleges that he has also noticed that on the right side of his Car had number of small paint droplets and complained to opposite party No.4. The service personnel has tried to remove those droplets but it was not cleared and they assured of removing all such droplets on the next visits of complainant.
8. Further submits that, having believed the words of the representatives of Opposite party No.04 as some problems would arose one in thousand vehicles and hoping for the better performance of his car in future, and to get onto his work has taken delivery of his car on 31.08.2018 on their promise of it would be rod worthy to the fullest extent. Further the complainant was astonished to notice, the abnormality I n his vehicle on its motion on 4.9.2018 and 5.9.2018 while shifting the gear from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th in its automatic mode. Thus the complainant has reported the same to the service personnel of opposite party No.4 on 06.9.2018 and to the customer care of the Renault. At that time, the opposite party No.4 advised the complainant to bring his car to the service station once again to examine the vehicle thoroughly.
99. According to Complainant that on 11.09.2018 at about 9.15 A.M while Complainant was parking his car in his house, he noticed sudden lock of steering on movement of the vehicle. Therefore he stopped usage of the said car for untimely locking of steering would lead danger to his life as well as the inmates of car. In addition, he also noticed during movement of his car in reverse direction, steering goes hard and moves in different direction beyond his control with red zig zag indication in the instrument panel and sensed serious issues .Thereon with great difficulty, he has parked his vehicle at home. And on appraising the said problem to OP No.4, he has advised him to go for road side assistance of the company in such situations. And in turn, the road side assistance informed him as it would not extend such services to new vehicles and instructed him to contact nearby Service station. And on contacting the customer care, it has arranged road side assistance at his house No.A004, BEL White Square, Vidhyaranyapura Post, Bangalore-97. The road side assistant inspected his vehicle and advised him to tow the vehicle to its nearby service station, As he was facing repeated problems in his car since the date of purchase, he lodged complaint to Sadashivnagar Police on the same day of 11.09.2018 by appraising the series of manufacturing defects inrooted in his said car. The police complaint lodged by the complainant and acknowledgement is produced marked as Ex-C 36 & 37.
1010. It is stated that the attendant arrived on the fore noon of 12.09.2018 and inspected the vehicle and found to subject the same for higher investigation by taking the vehicle to service station etc. Since the said attendant did not brought any job card, he went away without any intimation. The representatives of OP No.04 informed complainant to pick up his Car on 18.09.2018, in the mean time the Sadashivnagar Police called Complainant to attend the station on 18.09.2018, the said police arranged a meeting with the OP Nos.3 & 4 and during discussion the said OPs assured to ease out the issue in collaboration with the Renault Higher officers, by promising to meet on subsequent day.
11. Thereafter the OP No.03 has picked up his said vehicle on 19.08.2018 and registered detail problems in job card, by informing to return his vehicle to the customer care. Further complainant specifically alleged that he did not get any updates about the said meeting with the company officers but OP.No.4 representative have pressurized him to accept the same faulty Car as if the said Car is in good condition etc. And he being disagreed to accept the said faulty car he again approached Sadashivanagar police on 20.9.2018, Since the Renault Company officials did not respond to the call made by the police 11 to ease out his problem, despite of assurance of OP Nos.3 and 4 had earlier meeting in said Police station to resolve the issue. Further submits that he is very much disappointed for not fulfilled his legitimate demands of the refund of the Cost of the entire vehicle along with such other losses caused to him although. But the OPs were all insisting him to tag on to the same faulty Car, which was subjected to series of repairs with replacement of major parts of his Car.
12. Complainant submits that he determined not to take the said Car from the OP No.4/ Service station, virtually keeping away from usage of the said Car to save his life by leaving the said vehicle with OP No.4. Further submits that OPs 1 to 3 being the Car manufacturing company and the concerned higher officers are keeping silent over the burning issue, as it would take away the reputation of the company for being delivered manufacturing defective vehicle to him and for that he was very much upset at the darings of opposite parties for not making up their mind to sort out the burning issue by paying the cost of the vehicle and thereon to compensate the loss and inconvenience that he was put to after purchase of the said Car/vehicle without using the same. All the efforts of the complainant including legal notice dated: 1/10/2018 went in vain. Thus alleged deficiency of service and filed the present complaint to 12 get redress of his grievance. Accordingly, prayed to allow the complaint.
13. Upon service of notice, OP-1 though received the notice, did not appear nor contested the case and hence placed exparte. Opposite parties 2 to 5 appeared through learned counsels contested the matter and OP.Nos 2 and 5 filed their version. During the course of enquiry, counsel for complainant files affidavit of complainant in lieu of oral evidence and marked the documents as Ex-C1 to 57 and closed the evidence. Counsel for OP.No.5 files documents and IA under border III rule 2(a) of CPC to substitute the authorized representative of OP.No.5, namely Sri Hemachandra H.R in place of K.Ramakrishnan to proceed further in the matter with affidavit. Further he also files affidavit evidence of manager and authorized signatory of OP in lieu of oral evidence and closed the evidence.
14. The complainant in his affidavit evidence re-iterated all most all the facts stated in his complaint. In support of his case, he has produced the copies of Order Booking Form, Tax Invoice, Road Tax + Insurance debit note dated 5-7-2018 Doct.Nos.C- 18, Additional Debit note dated 5-7-2018 Doct.Nos.C-18, Sale certificate issued in Form No.21, Extended warranty Certificate, Covering letter of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co., RTO Challan for 13 registration, Registration certificate of his vehicle, Renault Finance loan customer copy, EMI and Security Cheques, Advance receipt of Rs.25,000/- paid through SBI Cheque No.085176, Bank statement for Rs.8,82,547/- + 18,314, Email Communications from 16.8.2018 uptill 25.9.2018 (34 pages), Job Slip dated 16.8.2018 Doct.Nos.C-20 , Parts replacement invoice dated 31.08.2018 Doct.Nos.C-21 to C-34 and 35 & 36, Photographs of Parts replacement in his said vehicle, Complaint issued to GM Service, Yelahanka dated 31.8.2018, Police complaint lodged by complainant dated 11.9.2018 along with acknowledgement Doct.Nos.C-37 and 38, Job Card Slip dated 19.9.2018 on returning the Car, Police Endorsement dated 21.9.2018, Legal notice dated 1.10.2018 issued on his behalf to OPs Doct.Nos.C-40 41 to 44, Postal RPAD Acknowledgement (4 Nos.), Letter dated 15.10.2018 issued by the OP No.4 to him Doct.Nos.C-45, Reply dated 20.10.2018 to the letter of OP No.4 Doct.Nos.C-46, Notice dated 28.11.2018 issued to OP Nos.4 & 5. RPAD Acknowledgement Doct.Nos.C-48 and 50, Notice dated 15.3.2019 by the OP No.5/Financier to him Doct.Nos.C-51 and 54, Reply dated 23.3.2019 to OP No.5 Doct.Nos.C-51 and C54, E-mails corresponding between him and OPs.1 to 4, reply of OP.No.4 to the Email of complainant and 19/3/2020 Evidence affidavit of expert witness along with online public reviews about Renault Duster Car Doct.Nos.C-56 and 57.
1415. Opponents No. 2 and 5 in their objections denies all the allegations contained in the complaint that averments made therein, are vague, baseless and made with malafide intent, as there is no concrete evidence to support any allegation of manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question nor any deficiency in service sustainable against the opposite parties,, hence the averments and/or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and, the complaint is liable for rejection and accordingly prays the same may be dismissed.
16. The OP No.2 in its objections specifically taken a plea that, the complainant in his complaint expressed his discontent in using the said vehicle alleging shifting of gear related problems and steering lock issues to the centre. That upon bringing the vehicle to the workshop of the service centre on 20.09.2018 it was identified by the service centre that the vehicle was working in a normal condition.
17. Further OP-2 has taken contention stating that the problems faced by the complainant are pre-dated and that any further claims regarding defects in the said vehicle will have to be substantiated with cogent evidence. OP-2 further submitted that the reliefs claimed by the complainant under the present 15 complaint are not maintainable in the eyes of law and as such, prays for the present complaint to be dismissed forthwith.
Further OP-2 submits that there is no role in respect of after sales service of vehicle on the part of the OP-2 and therefore no case made out against this opposite party (Manufacturer) under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the present complaint is therefore, prayed to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs thereto under Section 26 of the Act, for dragging a reputed and highly acclaimed Company into an unnecessary, unwanted and speculative litigation. To prove the defence/case of the opponent he is relying on the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in the case of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. v Mr. Syed Hasan Bukhari and 1 another 2014 SCC Online NCDRC 659, has also clearly held "that as per terms of Dealership Agreement after sales services are to be rendered by the dealers... The defects mentioned in the job cards are repairable."
18. Further, as stated supra, the opponent No.2 has contented as narrated supra that the complainant has raised issues regarding inherent defects in the said vehicle for which no substantial proof has been submitted by the Complainant. For instance the complainant has not submitted any expert opinion to substantiate his claim nor produced any other evidence to 16 showcase the alleged defects in the said vehicle. That in the absence of any evidence no claim can be made admissible against this OP, the same being he manufacturer of the said vehicle. That the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in cases such as EID Parry Vs. Baby Benjamin, I (1992) CPJ 279, Tata Motors Vs. Sunil Bhasin, 2008 (II) CPJ 111, Chandreshwar Vs. Telco, I (2007) CPJ 2, has held that the procedure laid down under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act is precedent to determining any defects in the said goods in question. Hence it is submitted that mere unsubstantiated claims and allegations regarding the said defects in the car cannot be considered as manufacturing defects as the same will have to be supported by cogent evidence.
19. The counsel for the Opponent No.5, the above said complaint is neither maintainable in law nor maintainable on the facts. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging manufacturing defects in respect of the said vehicle for which the relief, if applicable, can be sought from OP.No.1 to 4. The OP.No.5 is merely a financier of the said vehicle against which a vehicle loan was availed by the complainant vide Loan Agreement No.RBAN128986 dated 2nd July 2018.
20. The contents of Para 2 of the complaint are denied in toto and that it has containing vague references against the 17 opposite parties. However, the OP.No.5 reiterates that it is engaged in financing the vehicle manufactured by OP.No.1 and 2 i.e. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. The contents of Para 3 of the complaint are vehemently denied being based on false facts and also containing vague allegations. It is false and vehemently denied that the opponents have given any false publicity or messed the mind of Public or the complainant by inducing the complainant to buy Renault Duster vehicle. It is further denied that the OP.No.5 is responsible for any manufacturing or other defect in the said financed vehicle rather this opposite party is not a manufacturing company rather the OP.No.5 is merely acting as a financer having first charge on the financed vehicle and further the complainant is liable to repay the loan installments to OP.No.5 on the stipulated dates without any breach of timelines provided in the said Loan Agreement.
21. Opposite party No.5 denies the entire averments and allegations in the complaint expect those that are specifically admitted herein. The answering OP respectfully submits that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan facility from the OP.No.5 for purchase of a vehicle bearing Model Renault Duster bearing Chassis/VIN No. MEEHSRCFKJ4005705 and engine No. E026476. The complainant had further signed and executed a written Loan agreement No. RBAN128986 dated 2nd July 2018 whereby the total Contract value of Rs. 7,51,680/- (inclusive of 18 Finance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- along with Interest @ 9.25%) was to be repaid by the complainant in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs. 12,528/- each to be repaid on 1st of every month. The Complainant had further agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement including the timely repayment of loan installments to the Opposite Party No.5.
Clause 3.11 of the said loan agreement duly signed by the said complainant states that the Borrower shall pay the loan installments as per the agreed schedule irrespective of any defect in the said financed vehicle. The said clause is reproduced below for reference of this Commission:
3.11 The payment of the Installments shall commence and continue as per the payment schedule specified in Annexure 1 hereto irrespective of any non-delivery/ delayed-delivery of the Product(s) by the dealer to the borrower, and whether or not the Product(s) are defective or not working or under repair, and any dispute / difference whatsoever between any parties in relation to the Product(s) shall not entitle the Borrower/s to withhold or delay payment of any Installment or 19 other sum. It is clarified that any delay in payment of Installments shall attract late payment penalty as set out in Annexure 1 hereto.
22. During the course of arguments, the complainant counsel filed memo dated 9.6.2022 and produced documents. On perusal of the memo filed on behalf of the complainant could see that he has settled the Finance claim of OP.No.5 from whom he has raised loan for purchase of the car, which is under the issue before this court for being delivered manufactured defective Car. It is stated that, As the said car bearing No.KA-04- MV-0621 was left with the Authorized Service Station/O.P.No.4 since 19th September 2018 and is still in the said Service station for the complainant could not take back the recurring manufactured defective vehicle as he had passed hell of time on purchase of the said Renault Duster Car of O.P.No.1 to 3.
23. It is stated that, since the said car is lying with O.P.No.4, from 19.9.2018 and same is not under the use of complainant and as such he could not renew the said vehicle policy. As the complainant has cleared the Finance raised from O.P.No.5, it has issued Loan Closure Certificate and No Objection Certificate, appraising no dues against his Loan account so as to terminate the hypothecation of the said 20 vehicle. Also handed over Form No.35 for termination of Hire Purchase Agreement to the complainant by the O.P.No.5.
24. On examining the correspondent documents enclosed to this memo dated 9.6.2022 i.e., the Loan Termination Letter and No objection certificate dated 6/4/2022 addressed to RTO. Loan Termination Letter and No objection certificate dated 6/4/2022 addressed to Insurance Company. Loan Closure/No due Certificate dated 6/4/2022 addressed to complainant Form No.35 (in two sets) signed by the Financier/O.P.No.5. Two Endorsements dated 18/5/2022 and 1/6/2022. Two Letters of complainant addressed to RTO, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore dated 11/5/2022 and 1/6/2022 for cancellation of Hypothecation. It is therefore, on keen perusal of the above documents produced by the complainant could see that, On the strength of the said documents of O.P.No.5, the complainant has submitted requisite papers to the RTO, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore to remove the hypothecation entry in the said Car documents for the said R.C. stands in his name even though the car is not under his use and has been under the custody of the O.P.No.4. But the said RTO has demanded top furnish the said Vehicle Insurance Policy for the current year and its Emission Test Certificate. Since the said vehicle is not under the use of complainant, he was expressed as he is unable to produce the 21 said documents for the said vehicle is not under his use for the past more than three years and for no fault of complainant, but for the defective manufacture of the said vehicle and sold the same to him by O.P.No.1 to 3. And for that reason, the complainant is unable to get Emission Test and to secure Insurance Policy for the sole reason of said Car is neither under his use nor under his custody ever since 19/9/2018.
25. Therefore, to appraise the current development in the issue, this memo dated 9/6/2022 filed by the complainant, under such circumstances the balance of convenience lies in favour of OP.No.5. The liability of the complainant to make payment towards the loan in favour of OP.No.5 is absolutely made and it is evident from the documentary evidence produced by the complainant, are enclosed to this memo.
The OP.No.5 filed defense version, on perusal of defense version of the O.P.No.5 state that, the 5th opposite party is NISSAN RENAULT FINANCIAL SERVICE INDIA PVT. LTD that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan facility from the answering opposite party for purchase of a vehicle bearing model Renault Duster bearing Chassis/VIN No. MEEHSRCFKJ4005705 and engine No. E026476.
22Further Clause 4 of the said Loan agreement duly signed by the said Complainant duly provides that the OP.No.5 shall not be responsible for any defect or variation in the quality, condition or fitness of the financer vehicle and the Complainant being the loan borrower shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the quality, condition, fitness and performance of the vehicle. Therefore the OP No.05 is not liable for the claim of the complainant to refund the entire value of amount paid for the purchase of the car or to pay any amount of compensation. On perusal of these grounds the complaint is dismissed against OP No.05.
26. In the present complaint, at the very outset it may be started that, to establish the claim for the total refund of the entire purchase amount of the car the complainant has adduce credible, adequate evidence EX C-1 to C-55 and cogent evidence supported by the Doct.Nos C-56 and 57 .Nonetheless, the vehicle in question there is defect in the alleged vehicle since on several occations complainant had experienced the vehicle halted in sudden jerk, and same continued frequently which caused inconvenience. Since OP No.02 themselves have admitted that on 11.08.2018 the Complainants car was halted with huge jerk in moving traffic and that the dealer/service center opposite party OP No.02 had advised to station the car for a while before commencing to restart the vehicle. Further it is not in dispute that on 15.08.2018 the said vehicle had halted 23 multiple time that the car itself was exposing a burning smell and due to vehicle traffic, the car was parked in a nearby parking lot by the complainant. That the said vehicle on 16.08.2018 was taken to the workshop of M/s Trident Auto Enterprises Private Limited located at No.76/1, Allalasandra, opposite Jakkur Flying Training center.
27. For being found such virulent in new vehicle purchased by investing huge money for complainant, on further enquiry the said Salesman/respondent No.3 has advised the complainant as, it would be set right after subjecting the vehicle for first service, also it is admitted fact that further the complainant once again reported the same to the Sales person of opposite party No.3, who advised him to secure the vehicle for immediate service.
28. Admittedly service center of opposite party No.02 received the defective said car has attended major repairs & replaced the parts in the vehicle such as pressure plate, clutch kit, Flywheel, brake Clutch Fluid, gear box, clutch plate at free of cost as per the warranty terms and conditions of the vehicle. It is important to note that also conducted air bleeding procedure due to air blockage by keeping the said Car with opposite party No.4 from 16.8.2018 upstill 31.8.2018 for over 15 days. Further the complainant also expressed his concern with regards to the 24 paint job in the said vehicle which was not completed as per his requirements and the same was agreed to be completed mutually by the Complainant and the service center upon the next visit.
But Complainant further noticed the inrooted problems and other abnormalities in his car, on its motion while shifting the gear from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th in its automatic mode also is admitted fact. Complainant on 4th and 5th September 2018, reported problems to OP No.04, who in turn advised him to leave/park the car at service station of OP No.04 to examine the vehicle once again thoroughly. Coming to the nature of defect, we find that, despite replacement of the parts mentioned above, opposite parties could have taken into the matter by recalling the vehicle on their own initiative, with all diligence, they could have directly taken up the issue for a proper solution once it came to their workshop of opposite party, which they miserably failed to do. No service provider can be allowed to go scot free when a defect in their product is found to have the potential to cause serious injury or major loss to the customer, particularly in respect of safety features of the vehicle.
It is pertinent to note that, while Complainant was parking his car at his house, has noticed sudden lock of steering & while moving car in reverse direction, steering goes hard in different direction for which service center personnel advised to call for 25 road side repair from company. But the company roadside repairer, replied as they do not attend road side repairs for new vehicles and was advised to call service station personally. At this juncture, it must be reiterated that the OPs missed the opportunities at the right times to get the issues solved. As already pointed out, the manufacturer and the service station ought to have taken serious note of the problems in the car when it was brought to the service station . At least, after the vehicle was brought owing to the problems i.e, noticed the abnormalities in his car on its motion while shifting the gear from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th in its automatic mode, opposite parties could have taken some real steps to get the issues solved which they failed to do. At any rate, the service station replaces the parts that are supplied to them by the manufacturer and, even after such replacement, if the problems recurs, it only reflects the manufacturing defect for which the OP No.1 to 4 must be held liable. In this case, both the manufacturer and also the dealer -cum- service station exhibited a clear conduct of negligence and service deficiency.
29. Complainant lodged complaint to Sadashivnagar police appraising the series to manufacture defects noticed in his car, from the date of purchase & endorsement dated 21/9/2018 issued by police Doct No. C-37& 38.Service attendent came and inspected the car and appraised major investigation is required to be made and thus advised complainant to take his car to 26 service station. Said police called OPs 3 & 4 to attend meeting in Police Station on 18-9-2018, wherein OPs assured to ease out the problems on discussing with higher officers of Renault Co.
It is important to note that, car was picked by OP No.4 and registered detail problems/defects in the job card and assured to inform customer care for the life risk facing by the Complainant on usage of said car Doct No. C-39. Complainant to substantiate his case has produced series of E-mail correspondence of complainant with OPs 2 to 4 from 11/8/1/ to 4/10/18 Doct No C-19 and filed evidence affidavit of Expert Witness dated 19/3/2020 Doct Nos C-56 & 57.
30. Usually Customers buy car by investing such huge amount out of their necessities, when the very purpose of purchasing the same is not served ; its quite common that they may get disappointed . In the present case it is an undisputed fact that, also even after many repairs, services and replacement of the parts in the vehicle such as clutch kit, fly wheel, pressure plate, brake clutch fluid, gear box and clutch plate, the complainant experienced the abnormalities in his vehicle it is found from the records that the abnormality in his vehicle on its motion on 4.9.2018 and 5.9.2018 while shifting the gear from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th in its automatic mode, that the complainant has experienced occurrence of sudden lock of steering while in operation. Therefore the complainant has 27 stopped to use the car for untimely locking of steering, would lead danger to his life. In addition, the complainant has also noticed that while his car was moving in reverse direction, steering goes hard and moves in different direction beyond his control with a red zig zag indication in the instrument panel and has sensed serious issues. Therefore complaint regarding problems in the car persist and the repeated problems continued, was again faced by the complainant.
In this regard, it is found from the complaint that, the complainant was very much upset at the darings of opposite parties for not making up their mind to sort out the inherent manufacturing defect for being delivered manufacturing defective vehicle to him and for that he requested OPs to repay the value of the car. It is important to note here that the OPs are essential service oriented company, they should discharge their statutory function and duties to ease out the problems as it is a new vehicle. Under the circumstances, the OPs are liable to make good the loss that has accrued to the complainant.
31. The said contentions of OP No.02 that the complainant has raised issues regarding inherent defects in the said vehicle for which no substantial proof has been submitted by the complainant cannot be sustained in the eye of law, because OPs themselves have not produced any such expert opinion to substantiate their claim nor produced any other evidence to 28 show that there is no alleged defects in the said vehicle, As if they are not competent to submit such report, this is enough to draw inference against the OPs that denotes manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. By merely contending that the problems faced by the complainant are pre-dated and that the OP-2 acted on "bonafide beliefs" will not absolve OPs from its legal liability and responsibility they owes to the complainant. The OPs have utterly failed to convince as to why the said new vehicle was subjected to major repairs every now and then with replacement of major parts of the said new car.
32. It is pertinent to note that, the new car within few days of the purchase experience with further complaint of sudden steering lock while under use and thereby complainant was afraid of using the said car, on the serious problems cropped up in the new vehicle for the deficiency in the process of manufacturing the vehicle, Onus shifts to the manufacturer to show that the vehicle does not suffer from manufacturer defect once when complainant has proved and discharged the initial onus that the vehicle is defective. In the present complaint the OPs utterly failed to prove by producing cogent evidence that the vehicle does not suffer from manufacturing defect. Large number of visit to the service station from the date of purchase of the car for removing some or the other defects is sufficient to draw the inference that the vehicle is a defective vehicle. If the new car shows defects continues for months together it erupts tie and 29 again no other inference can be drawn that the vehicle suffer from manufacturing defect. It is also to be noted herein that, from the documents produced by the complainant before this commission, it is proved that, the vehicle is having inrooted problems i.e, inherent defects and the same was brought to the notice of OPs well within the period of warranty.
33. Thus, in this case the very fact that the subject new vehicle was taken on large number of occasions for repairs and rectification of several defects and that they were accordingly rectified and removed every time and again and that the consumer was compelled to take the new vehicle frequently to the workshop clearly shows that the subject vehicle was a defective vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act especially when almost many of the major parts of the subject new vehicle admittedly have been replaced and is still stated to be giving problems. Further, the replacement of so many defective parts within few day of the purchase of the vehicle, continuous mal- functioning of the vehicle and sudden untimely locking of steering system shows a great sign of abnormality in the product. As the new vehicle giving problems within few days right from its purchase, The opposite parties are solely responsible to rectify the defect with free of cost or to refund the cost of the vehicle. In this context, The Hon'ble National Commission in catena of decisions repeatedly held that, if the 30 new vehicle having manufacturing defect from the date of purchase itself, in that event, it is needless for the Complainant to prove manufacturing defect. Under such circumstances, he is entitle for the new vehicle of the same brand with same features or else for the refund of the amount paid by him with interest and cost of litigation.
34. The Complainant has complied with all terms and conditions by leaving the vehicle on all occasions for repairs and service with OPs, but the response from the OPs to get the vehicle repaired is unsatisfactory for which complainant became upset and emotional. OPs have miserable failed to fix defect in the vehicle, in spite of keeping the vehicle for so many days. The vehicle is not even one year old and is still under warranty. The problem is a chronic which caused tremendous mental stress and agony which affected complainant business and lifestyle. The vehicle of the complainant is lying with the complainant unused since from long time. The complainant is put to irreparable injury and mental agony on account of non availability of the vehicle for attending to his duties. The complainant is made to depend on the other modes of transports and thereby , the same is causing huge burden on his pocket. Hence, the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for incurring losses on account of non availability of vehicle. The OPs are bound to compensate for mental agony and hardship 31 caused to complainant. It is highly unbecoming for car manufacturer to treat the complainant in an insensitive manner. As there exists manufacturing defect of the vehicle and the same giving problem right from its purchase, the OPs are solely responsible to rectify the defect or to refund the cost of the vehicle.
35. Pleadings of the parties and all the documents by them established that there is a inherent defect in the vehicle which the OPs failed to rectify the said defect even it is within the warranty period. So, on perusal of job card and other documents reveals that within a short period, from the date of purchase of the vehicle suffered defects from the date of its 1 st service and the same is continued to persist. The complainant sought for repayment of entire price of the car. As the complainant has proved defect in the said car and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 4 are liable to refund the entire price amount of the car. In these circumstances, it is just and proper to order for repayment of entire amount paid by complainant, as well as compensation and cost of the proceedings which shall be as per final order.
36. The OP.No.2 though filed its written version they have not furnished any evidence by way of any evidence affidavit or by producing any documents to substantiate their version. The 32 evidence and the documents produced on behalf of complainant as per Ex-C1 to C57 have not been challenged and the rebuttal evidence not been adduced by the OPs in this case. In view of unchallenged evidence and documents of complainant there is no other go expect to accept the evidence of complainant. From the above discussion it is made clear that the complainant has proved his case against OP.Nos.1 to 4.
The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that complainant had a bad experience with the car which was having defective parts which required replacement, repair within few days of its purchase, it is also mentioned about the fact of continued persistence of huge problems after services on the part of OPs besides unfair trade practices on the part of OPs.
37. As per the documents produced by the complainant, it proves that the car purchased by him suffers defect from few days of its purchase and the same is continued to persist. As the complainant sought for repayment of entire price of the car, has proved defect in the above said car and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 to 4, the OPs are liable to refund the entire price amount. In these circumstances, it is just and proper to order for repayment of entire amount paid by complainant, as well as compensation and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order. Hence, it would be just and proper to direct 33 the OPs No.1 to 4 to refund Rs.12,33,000/- that was paid by the complainant towards the purchase amount of the car document marked as Ex.C-2, further refund Rs.2,41,938/- that he paid for road tax document marked as Ex.C-3, further to refund Rs.12,030/- that he paid for other service charges document marked as Ex-C4, to refund Rs.12,330/- that he paid for TCS- payable on sale car-PORSR document marked as Ex-C5, and to refund Rs.34,665/- document marked as Ex-C9 premium paid to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.
ORDER
1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally hereby directed to refund Rs.12,33,000/- to the Complainant that he paid towards purchase amount of the car, by taking back the car in question along with original R.C and documents from the complainant.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.2,41,938/- to complainant that he paid for road tax, further to refund Rs.12,030/- to Complainant that was paid to other service charges.
344. Further OPs 1 to 4 are directed to refund Rs.12,330/- to complainant that he paid TCS -
payable on sale car and directed to pay
Rs.34,665/- to complainant that he paid
premium to Bajaj Allianz general insurance
co.ltd.
5. Further OPs 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.
6. This order is to be complied by the OPs No 1 to 4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a on Rs.12,33,000/- from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
7. The Complaint as against OP No.05 is dismissed.
8. Furnish free copy of this order to all the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*BR*
35