Karnataka

Kolar

CC/28/2022

Sri.Ramachandrappa.G.T - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Sale Manager, Surya Nissam Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

 

                          Date of Filing: 01.07.2022

Date of Disposal: 21.10.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

PRESENT

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 28 OF 2022

Sri. Ramachandrappa G.T,

Aged About 40 Years,

S/o. Thimmappa,

R/at: No.1290, 1^st Cross,

Vijayanagar, Bangarpet-563 114.                                 ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. N. Jayaprakash, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) The Chief Sales Manager /

Authorized Signatory, Surya

Nissan Private Limited (Lakshmi Car

Zone Private Limited), Dealer of Nissan

Motor India Private Limited,

Sy. No.9/1, Doddanakundi Village,

K.R.Puram Hobli, Marathhalli,

Outer Ring Road, Bangalore-560037.

(Rep. by Sri. S. Divakar, Advocate)

 

2) The Authorized Signatory,

Nissan Motor India Private Limited,

Plot No.1A, SIPCOT Industrial Park,

Mattur Post, Oragadam,

Sriperumbudur Taluk,

Kancheepuram District,

Tamil Nadu-602 105.

(Rep. by Sri.T.V. Shivaraj Kumar, Advocate)       …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite parties and prays to direct the Ops to take back the REDIGO XE Car and to deliver good conditioned new car or in the alternative direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- being the cost of the said vehicle along with compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, in total Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant also praying with cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

02.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, OP No.1 is a dealer in sales and service of Cars/SUV of Nissan Motor India Private Limited. It is stated that the complainant had purchased DATSUN REDI-GO 1 LTR T(O) BS6 (LMV-SUV) Car on 31.10.2021 from the OP No.1 and the details of the said vehicle as per the sale certificate issued by the OP No.1 is as under:-

1.       Class of Vehicle    :         LMV-SUV

2.       Makers name        :         Renault Nissan Automotive (I)Pvt. Ltd.

3.       Chassis No.           :         MDHFBACD0M1417408

4.       Engine No.            :         E024691

5.       Horse Power/

          Cubic capacity      :         999 CC

6.       Fuel used              :         PETROL

7.       No. of cylinders     :         Three

8.       Year of manufacture:      2021

9.       Seating capacity

          (Including driver)  :         4 + 1

10.     Unladen weight    :         1014 KG

11.     Colour of Body     :         Silver

12.     Gross vehicle weight:     939 KG

13.     Type of Body         :         Saloon

 

Further complainant states that, the complainant’s car was insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and was also registered in the Office of the ARTO, K.G.F. vide Reg. No. KA-08 M-8410.  Further complainant states that, the OP No.2 is the maker/manufacturer of the said car and at the time of purchase from the OP No.1 show room the sales representative demonstrated the features of the said vehicle in the appreciation manner by stating that, the model of the vehicle is 2021, validity period of the car and validity of the Engine is Life time, free service for a period of 02 years or till 20,000 kms and within half an hour service will be provided by the OP No.1 wherever car break-down in India. 

02(a).       Further complainant states that, when complainant visited the OP No.1 service center, the service representatives have stated that, free service of the said car is only for one year or till 10,000 KMs.  Further complainant states that, on 31.01.2022 the complainant with his family members while returning from Chitradurga to Bangarpet in the said car at about 12.00 noon near Bangalore Bhatrahalli Gate signal suddenly the car break down and immediately he called OP No.1 for nearly 10 times, but OP No.1 have not attended the said break down car till evening and without alternative through his relatives he taken the hired car and sent his family members to Bangarpet and he got repaired the said car through private mechanics by paying Rs.3,500/-. 

02(b).       Further complainant states that, during last week of February-2022 he and his friends while travelling in the said car to Markandeya temple situated at small hill station near Vakkalri Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the car was unable to move/pick-up to the said hill and engine became heated and break down without any alternative after cooling time he and his friends returned to Bangarpet in the said car.  The complainant having good faith and having trust on OP No.2 had purchased the said car from the OP No.1 show room by believing the demonstrations by the sale representatives of OP No.1, but OP Nos.1 & 2 have cheated him by selling the said vehicle which consisting of out dated and defective engine and the said vehicle is not 2021 model vehicle and it is 2019 or 2020 model as per the thorough verification made by the complainant through authenticated person/mechanic.

02(c).       Further complainant states that, the said vehicle was purchased by him for Rs.4,35,197/- as per tax invoice, but OP No.1 have collected Rs.5,40,000/- without deducting the booking advance of Rs.1,10,000/- and he availed loan from State Bank of India as per the advice of representative of OP No.1 and the interest was @ 10.6% per annum.  On enquiry the said Bank has informed that, interest rate is 8.5% per annum and hence in the said loan transaction also OP No.1 has cheated the complainant.  Further he deposed that, the said vehicle is not in good condition and consisting of defective engine and the same is not supposed to pick up or move to streaps/ups and the mileage is only 12 to 13 KM per liter of petrol, but the OP No.1 representatives have stated that, the mileage of the said car is 25 KM per liter of petrol.  The OP No.1 has not provided required service to the said vehicle and committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is alleged that the OP NO.2 has manufactured the said vehicle defectively and it is not in accordance with Automobile engineering condition. 

02(d).       Further complainant stated that, he got issued legal notice dated: 21.03.2022 to OP Nos.1 & 2 and the same were served to them, but Ops neither complied nor replied to the notice.  The complainant and his family members have suffered mental agony and physical frustration and emotional distress while travelling in the said car and he also suffering inferiority in the circle of his friends as OP No.1 have cheated him by selling out dated / defective / repaired car to him which was manufactured by the OP No.2, hence both OP Nos.1 & 2 are liable to take back the said car and deliver good conditioned new car to the complainant and in alternative Ops are liable to pay Rs.6,50,000/- being collected by the OP No.1 towards cost of the vehicle and Ops are also liable to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation, in total Ops are liable to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant.  The cause of action is arose on 30.01.2022, during the last week of February 2022 when complainant noticed deficiency in service by the OP No.1 and defective condition of the vehicle by OP No.2 and on 21.03.2022 when the complainant issued notices to OP Nos.1 & 2.  Hence this complaint.

03.     On receipt of notice from this Commission that  the  for OPs Nos.1 & 2 have appeared through their counsels but did not choose to file their version despite several opportunities and hence version of Ops is taken as not filed.  

04.   In order to prove the case of the complainant, he has filed his affidavit evidence along with documents which were marked from Annexure-01 to Anneuxre-16.  Further to substantiate the case of the complainant, he also filed affidavit of one Sri. Vinay Kumar, Car Mechanic, along with documents marked from Annexure Nos. -17 & 18. 

05.   On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief  as sought for in the complaint?

 

3. What order?

06.   Heard the arguments of the complainant.

07.   Our answers to the above points are as under:-

POINT NO.(1):-        Is in the Affirmative

 

POINT NO.(2):-        Is partly Affirmative

 

POINT NO.(3):-        As per the final order

for the following

 

5299419885.  

08.   POINT NO.(1):-        On perusing the pleadings of the complainant and the documents placed on record, it is evident from Annexure-9 Tax Invoice that, the complainant had purchased the DATSUN REDI-GO 1 LTR T(O) BS6 (LMV-SUV) Car on 30.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.4,35,197/- from OP No.1 and the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the said car.

09.   Now the main allegations of the complainant is that, at the time of purchase of the said disputed car from OP No.1 show room, the sales representatives of the OP No.1 show room have demonstrated that, the model of the vehicle is 2021, validity period of the car and validity of the Engine is Life time, free service for a period of 02 years or till 20,000 kms and within half an hour service will be provided by the OP No.1 wherever car break-down in India.  When complainant visited to OP No.1 for getting free service, but the OP No.1 representatives stated that, free service of the car is only for one year or till 10,000/- kms.  It is stated that On 31.01.2022 the complainant with his family members while returning from Chitradurga to Bangarpet at about 12.00 PM near Bangalore, Battarahalli Gate, suddenly the said car was break down and immediately complainant called the company service center, but OP No.1 has not given response and failed to give service. The complainant waited till evening and without any alternative complainant has arranged hired car and sent his family members to Bangarpet and thereafter complainant got repaired the said car by private mechanics by paying amount of Rs.3,500/-.  The OPs have not attended the break-down car of the complainant in-spite of number of calls made by the complainant.

10.   Further stated that during the last week of 2^nd February the complainant and his friends while travelling in the said car to Markodiaha temple situated at small hill station at Vakkaleri Village, the said vehicle was unable to move or taking pick-up on the said hill station and the engine of the car heated and break down and without any alternative after cooling time the complainant and his friends return back to the Bangarpet. It is alleged that on several requests made by the complainant to the OP No.1, the OP No.1 has failed to give proper service to reach the vehicle road worthy condition of the said vehicle and hence OP No.1 is deficient in his service.

11.   In order to substantiate the complainant case and filed his affidavit evidence and also examined one Sri. Vinay Kumar.N, Car mechanic, having 25 years of experience in car mechanic and working in automobile engineering works at Kolar and so also submitted his affidavit evidence along with documents marked as Annexure-17 & 18.  In the affidavit the said witness has deposed that, on 12.03.2022 he driven the said car/vehicle and verified its running condition, but the said car/vehicle was not supposed to pick up the 2^nd gear to the hills station and with great difficulty it reached to Markandeshwara hill in a first gear and in the road humps engine of the said vehicle is not supposed to take pick-up and its running condition is very slow and when it was driven only in 1^st gear then engine was heated and break-down of the said vehicle. And witness further stated that, the said car cannot be repaired due to warranty and guaranty of the said vehicle.  The complainant witness Sri. Vinay Kumar had given the certificate marked as Annexure-17 to support his deposition made in his affidavit evidence.  The photo was marked as Annexure -18 and Insurance Copy as Annexure-11 produced by the complainant, it shows that, the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2020.  On perusal of the RC book extract issued by the RTO – the competent authority it is clearly mentioned that, the said car in question was manufactured in the year 2021.  Hence the photograph and the insurance marked at Anenxure-17 & 11 cannot be taken into consideration. 

12.   Further the complainant failed to prove that, the said car suffers from any manufacturing defect.  The complainant does not adduced evidence of any qualified expert in the field of automobile Engineer, but the complainant to substantiate his case, he has produced a local car mechanic’s evidence and hence the said evidence given by the un-authenticated person i.e., the evidence of local car mechanic cannot be taken into consideration in absence of the expert evidence. Further the complainant does not produce any authenticated/cogent documents to believe us that, the said show room’s new car suffers from any manufacturing defect.  So we come to the conclusion that, the Op No 2 being the manufacturer of the said car is not liable to replace the said disputed car/vehicle with a new one as prayed by the complainant, whereas it is the duty of the manufacturer to see that, whether the Op No.1 has given proper service to repair the car to its road worthy condition, but as per the evidence placed on record both the Ops have failed to give timely and proper service to their customer-complainant. On the basis of the reasons assigned above, we reached to conclusion that, the Ops are deficient in their service. Accordingly we answered Point No.1 in the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:-

13.   In view of the aforesaid discussions it is clear that, the complainant had suffered lot of mental agony because he had purchased a new car from the OP No.1 show room on 31.10.2021 with a fond hope that, he can travel with his family members comfortably and due to the break-down of the said car on several occasions and in-spite of repeated approaches made by the complainant to set-right the same, the OP No.1 has failed to provide a good service to its customer. Hence complainant and his family members have suffered lot of mental agony, emotional distress while travelling in the said new show room car, which resulted, the complainant to suffer inferiority in his friends circle.  Further in the said situation also the complainant is paying regularly all the EMIs towards the car loan which he had borrowed from SBI.  Under the circumstance we hereby deem it just and proper to direct both the Ops that, both OP Nos.1 & 2 are liable to repair all the defects found in the said car to the road worthy condition and for mental agony Ops are jointly and severely liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Accordingly we answered Point No.2 partly affirmative.

14.   POINT NO.(3):- On the basis of the findings given on Point Nos. (1) & (2) and the discussions made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 both jointly and severally are directed to repair all the defects found in the DATSUN REDI-GO 1 LTR T(O) BS6 (LMV-SUV) complainant’s car bearing registration No. KA-08 M-8410 to the road worthy condition at free of cost and to hand over the same to the complainant.

03.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 both jointly and severally are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

04.   The OP NOs.1 & 2 both jointly and severally are directed to comply the above said order within 30 days  from the date of  this order and compliance report  shall be submitted to this Commission within 45 days of this order.

05.   Send a copy of this order to both parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022)

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT