BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF APRIL, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.414/2020

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

H.R.Lakshmana Reddy,

S/o Late H.A.Rama Reddy,

Practicing Advocate,

Residing at No.839 C, 17^th Main,

(Rep by Sri.Rajashekar K, Adv)

V/s

The Managing Director,

Trident Auto Enterprises (P) Limited,

Reg.Office No.210/2,

Upper Palace Orchards,

Sadashivanagara, Bellary Road,

The Managing Director,

Trident Auto Enterprises (P) Limited,

Branch Office at S.No.33/445,

30/6b & 31/1,

Rupena Agrahara,

Hosur Road,

(Rep by Sri.Harish Shashikumar, Adv)

M/s Renalt India Private Limited,

No.37/38, 4^th Floor,

ASV Ramana Towers,

Venkatanarayana Road,

Chennai-600017. …….OPPOSITE PARTY-3

(Rep by Smt.Kusuma M, Adv)

******

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs.15,73,240/- paid by the complainant and the expenses incurred towards the purchase of car and for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards mental agony and loss of damages and such other reliefs, as this Commission may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the Renault car namely Duster RXZ 110 PS AMT  from 1^st opposite party authorized dealer on 06.06.2017.  Further it is not in dispute that the opposite party no.1 was the authorized dealer and the opposite party no.2 was the service centre.  Further opposite party no.3 was the manufacturer of the said car.  The opposite party no.1 is placed ex-parte.  Even though the opposite party no.2 was represented by the counsel not contested the case.  Subsequently, the opposite party no.3 came to be impleaded, during the pendency of the case at the instance of the complainant by the order of the Commission dt.20.02.2021.  The opposite party no.3 has contested the case. 

3. It is the further case of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle for a price of Rs.12,54,055/- besides paying addition sum of Rs.3,19,185/- towards Road Tax, Insurance, Sale of Number Plate etc.  Further the car was under warranty period for a period of 3 years.  Further while using the car after three months, he noticed that shuddering/jerking while driving slow in moving forward due to manufacturing defect and the same was intimated to the service centre of opposite party no.2, at the time of 2^nd and 3^rd free service for attending to necessary repairs of the gear box including periodical free service of the vehicle on 31.10.2017 and 07.02.2018.  After service, the 2^nd opposite party assured and promised that the gear box of the car will be functioning smoothly.  Despite of the repairs and service, the complainant experienced frequent gear not shifted/jerking of his car due to manufacturing defect of gear box and he repeatedly brought the said trouble to the notice of 2^nd opposite party service centre, mechanics and higher authorities urging them to set right the gear box problems.  But his grievance was not at all been rectified satisfactorily.  Because of that the complainant sustained mental agony and not attended the court in times due to car problem and he had lost his clients and claiming a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards damages. Further the complainant had given a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party with regard to the defect in the gear box i.e., on 31.10.2017, 07.02.2018, 24.02.2018, 21.08.2018, 31.08.2018, 20.11.2018, 10.05.2019, 10.07.2019, 18.09.2019 and finally on 24.02.2020.

4. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant had given a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party service centre on 24.02.2020 with regard to the gear problem, but the car was not ready, because of the manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dt.09.05.2020 calling upon the opposite party no.1 & 2 to refund the entire amount of Rs.15,73,240/- and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- towards damages.  The 1^st opposite party had given untenable reply to the legal notice on 05.06.2020                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       and the 2^nd opposite party neither replied nor complied the demand.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed for a total sum of Rs.19,98,240/-.

5. It is the further case of the opposite party no.3 that the vehicle manufactured by the opposite party no.3 passes through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts.  Further the vehicles manufactured by the opposite party no.3 are sold on “Principal to Principal” basis to its dealers across the country and the vehicles are to be ‘OK’ in all respects.  Further the dealers have not the agents of the opposite party no.3 and they set on their own behest and behalf, for which the opposite party no.3 holds no liability for the act of opposite party no.1 & 2. 

6. It is further contended that the vehicle can be subject to verification by an expert for any manufacturing defect and there is no evidence on record furnished by the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect and it is settled law to establish an allegation of a manufacturing defect, it is necessary to get the goods examined by an independent expert.  Further, since the transaction of purchasing and service of the said vehicle was strictly held between the complainant and the dealer/service centre (op no.1 & 2), there is no cause of action against the opposite party no.3.  Further the issue reported by the complainant about the gear box were diagnosed and the clutch kit and flywheel were replaced under warranty, at the time of 2^nd and 3^rd services on 31.10.2017 and 07.02.2018.  Further the technical team had conducted various road tests and found no abnormally on 16.08.2018 when the vehicle was brought to the service centre of opposite party no.2.  

7.  It is further contended that every time the complainant had given a satisfactory reprot after service was conducted.  Further if there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, it would have been impossible for the vehicle to have run for 46,263 KMs in a short duration of just two years and eight months.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

8. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant (PW1) had filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P7 documents.  The opposite party no.3 did not examine any witnesses. 

      9. Heard the arguments and the counsel for the complainant and opposite party no.3 had filed their respective written arguments. 

      10. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves manufacturing defect in the vehicle and there is deficiency of service as contemplated u/s 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation as sought ?

iii) What order ?

 11.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In Negative

Point No.2 :  In Negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

12. POINT NO.1:- The complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.  It is undisputed fact that the complainant was the buyer of the car and the opposite party no.3 had manufactured and opposite party no.1 was its dealer and opposite party no.2 was its service provider.  To substantiate that the complainant was the buyer of the car, apart from the oral evidence, the complainant has produced EX.P1 the Tax Invoice.  Ex.P2 the Debit Note and Ex.P3 the service vehicle acceptance form/repair order, EX.P4 the repair order, EX.P5 the vehicle history relates to the car in question.  Further the opposite party no.3 had also submitted in the version that the Complainant had purchased the Renault car and opposite party no.1 & 2 are the dealer and service center. The complainant will be a ‘Consumer’ as contemplated u/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

13. The question is whether there is any mechanical defect in the car and the opposite party no.2 did not provide service to the car properly.  It is the case of the complainant that there was a problem in the gear box and the car was Jerking even though several times it is complained and given for service, the same has not been rectified by the opposite party no.2 service center.  It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the vehicle history maintained by the 2^nd opposite party clearly indicates about the mechanical defect and it has jerking and opposite party no.3 has falsely stated that the vehicle has no any mechanical defect and the problem has been solved by the 2^nd opposite party.  On perusal of the vehicle history while EX.P5 it appears that on 21.09.2019 the customer (complainant) told that the vehicle was jerking and issue was not resolved.  Further on 13.07.2019 also it was told by the customer about the gear jerk issue.  On 17.06.2019 the customer also told that he was satisfied with the service done and rated ‘10’.  On 15.05.2019 the customer told that she was busy on 22.05.2019, customer told the break and jerk issue and the same has to be resolved and cancelled the repair order.  On 06.10.2017 the complainant told that she was satisfied with the service and on 30.10.2017 customer told about the service was good and on 27.07.2017 the customer told that he was satisfied with the service.

14.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 in the written argument filed that there was no privity of contract to pay as sought in the complaint.  Further it is the contention that the transaction between the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.1 was principal to principal and not for principal and agent.  Further opposite party no.1 & 2 are not agents of opposite party no.3 and for the act of opposite party no.1 & 2, opposite party No.3 have no liability.  We feel since the opposite party No.3 was the manufacturer of the car in question even though the manufacture and had sold, the opposite party no.1 & 2 are the dealer and for any mechanical defect, the opposite party no.3 is held responsible.  Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the opposite party no.3 is not liable for any mechanical defect that the relationship in between opposite party No.3 and opposite party no.1 & 2 is of principal to principal and not principal and agent.  Apart from that the opposite party No.3 did not produce any document to establish that the opposite party no.3 had sold the vehicle to the opposite party no.1.

15.  The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that there is no cause of action against the opposite party no.3 since the relationship between opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.1 & 2 is of principal to principal.  We feel since opposite party no.3 did not produce any document that it has sold the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 it cannot be held that there is no cause of action against opposite party no.3.  The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that it cannot be concluded without any report from an expert with regard to the manufacturing defect.  Further the vehicle had run 46,263 KMs in a short duration of just two years and eight months.  Hence, it cannot be inferred that on that basis also about the manufacturing defect.  It is also contended by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the complainant should have got tested the vehicle with regard to the Jerking/gear box problem through an expert as contemplated u/s 13(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  We feel there is merit in the contention.  Further without their being an opinion from an expert, this commission cannot decide the issue with regard to the mechanical defect alleged by the complainant.  Hence, we feel the complainant has failed to prove the mechanical defect alleged and any deficiency of service alleged in the complaint.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in negative. 

16. POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussions made above and findings on point No.1 in negative, this point does not arise for consideration.  Accordingly, this point is also answered in negative. 

17. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, We proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 21^st day of April, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.H.R.Lakshmana Reddy, the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Copy of the Tax Invoice bearing No.SC/RISKBSR/168 dt.06.06.2017.
2. Debit note dt.06.06.2017.
3. Repair order dt.17.11.2018.
4. Another repair order dt.24.02.2020.
5. Copy of the vehicle history (page No.12 to 24).
6. Legal notice dt.09.05.2020.
7. Two postal receipts.
8. Two postal acknowledgements.
9. Reply notice dt.05.06.2020 issued by 1^st opposite party. 

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of the Board Resolution dt.01.08.2017.
2. Copy of vehicle history report maintained by the opposite parties.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•