Complaint filed on: 24-07-2020
Disposed on: 08-07-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.35/2020
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF July 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
Smt. K.Nethravathi W/o Shivakumar M
Aged about 38 years, R/at Near
Siddappa Floor Mill, Banashankari Main Road
Tumakuru.
……….Complainant
(By Sri.K.L.Bharathi, Advocate)
V/s
1. The Officer in-charge
Head Office, Renault
ASV Ramanna Towers,
No.37/38, 4th Floor,
Venkatarayana Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
2. The Officer in-chrge,
Regional Office, Renault,
No.502, 5th Floor, Town,
Centre-II, Sakinaka,
Andheri-Kurla Road,
Andheri(East)
Mumbai-460 059.
3. The office in-charge
Sales and Markting, Renault,
Plot No.11, 3rd Floor,
Sector 32, Institutional Area,
Gurgaon-122 002.
4. The office in-charge,
Trident Auto Enterprises,
Pvt. Ltd.-SR, No.210/2, Bellary Road
Upper Palae Orchards,
Sadashivanagara-560 080
Having its Branch at 84/1, Ring Road,
Gubbi bye pass Road,
Tumakuru-572 105.
(OP 1 to 3 By Sri.Himannad D.C., Advocate)
(OP.4 By Sri.Dhanush M., Advocate)
:O R D E R:
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH - LADY MEMBER
The complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to exchange the defected car with new one and also prays to direct the ops to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss in her business and profession.
2. The brief facts of complaint can be stated as under:
The complainant has purchased a Renault Kwid RXT Climber bearing registration No.KA-06-Z-2767 (Engine No.E166063, Chassis No.MEEBBA000K 2646512) from 4th Opposite Party on 06.06.2019 for a consideration of Rs.4,39,299/- which is ex-show room price and the complainant had taken the delivery of the said vehicle on the same day itself by paying the insurance and road tax. It is further submitted that the complainant is a reputed advocate at Tumakuru and the complaint is having a good practice and she is very much in need of the car for her day today practice.
2(a) The complainant further submitted that, the complainant purchased the said car because of its good conditions and maintenance will be economical. It is further submitted that one day when the complainant moved the car for just 5 K.M. the car was suddenly stopped with the huge noise and could not able to move the car, then the complainant towed the car to the show room by spending Rs.4,000/-. Thereafter the branch office under the authorization of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 initially has given a pre-job slip report for Rs.11,610/- including the labour and cost and after lapse of one month the respondent No..4 branch office has made a call and informed to the complainant that the engine of the said vehicle was seized and the insurance coverage has not made to the engine at the time of purchase and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 will not give the warranty for the said defect and gave a quotation for Rs.46,406 towards repair of the vehicle.
2(b) The complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party No.4 has not given any insurance copy of the complainant even after certain request till today. After receiving the quotation immediately the complainant has questioned the OP No.4 about repair of the vehicle without any service charges as the vehicle was under the warranty period as stated in the warranty book i.e. two years or 50,000 KM(whichever is earlier). But the OP No.4 which is authorized service center of OP Nos. 1 to 3 has not answered to the complainant till today after many approaches by the complainant.
2(c) The complainant further submitted that the OP No.4 knowing-fully well that the complainant is not having worldly knowledge about the vehicles and has not accompanied with any expert during the purchase of the said car, taking undue advantage that the OP No.4 has sold an defective car to the complainant with an intention defraud and deceive the complainant and hence the engine of the said vehicle has seized when it was just run 9,711 k.m. Hence, the OPs have to replace the defective car with a new conditional one.
2(d) The complainant further submitted that she got issued a legal notice through her advocate on 20.03.2020 calling the OPs to replace the defective car, but due to COVID notice not returned to the sender and thereafter OP No.4 issued reply notice dated:05.06.2020 stating that the engine has been seized due to non-maintenance of 2nd free service. But the complainant vehicle has not completed 10,000/- k.m. or one year for 2nd free service and further stated that the vehicle has run without engine oil due to damage in the oil sump and it is admitted fact that the said vehicle has stopped with huge noise when the vehicle had done 9,711 k.m. when one free service and it is known that every vehicle engine oil should be exchanged in the every free service, if the engine oil was completely dried then it is purely the negligence and service deficiency of the respondent No.4 and even then evasive reply of OP shows their attitude. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint.
3. After the service of notice, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 and 4 appeared and filed separate version.
3(a) The OP Nos. 1 to 3 in their version contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, malicious, vexatious and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action against these OPs. All the averments and submissions made by the complainant and allegations leveled are in general or against the OP No.4 in particular. The OPs have wrongly been impleaded as a party to the present dispute. A contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations under it on any person except the parties to it. A third person cannot be entitled to demand performance of the contract. There is no contract between the complainant and OPs with regard to the contract except to extend of warranty services in terms of conditions mentioned therein. The benefit of warranty services cannot be availed for damages caused to the vehicle because of complainant’s own negligence/default and/or external damage caused to the subject vehicle.
3(b) The OP Nos. 1 to 3 further contended that they are the reputed automobile company incorporated in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 and are neither a necessary nor a property party to the instant case. It is further contended that the OP No.4 is an authorised dealer of these OPs and the relation between the answering OPs and OP No.4 is not that to Principal to Agent’ but Principal to Principal’ basis by virtue of a dealership agreement executed between the parties. It is further contended that they are not aware of any of the dealings that would have taken place between the complainant and OP No.4 as they are only the manufacture and the OP No.4 is only responsible after selling the car. The OPs further contended that they are not liable to pay any amount or compensation as the complaint filed by the complainant is neither maintainable in law nor on facts against these OPs.
3(c) The OP Nos. 1 to 3 further contended that after inspection of the vehicle by the OP No.4, it is found that engine oil had oozed out due to the external damage in the oil sump of the subject vehicle and despite sign indicating to stop the car due to lack of engine oil in the vehicle, the complainant continued driving the car because of which the engine seized owing to the complainant’s own default/negligence. The benefit of warranty services cannot be availed for damages caused to the vehicle because of complainant’s own negligence/default. On these among other grounds, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 prays to dismiss the complaint by denying the other averments made in the complaint.
4. The OP No.4 in its version contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived and the contentions raised against this OP are misleading, erroneous and devoid of any merit.
It is further contended that they are in the business of sales and services of vehicles and the complainant had purchased a Renault Kwid RXT Climber from the OP No.4 on 06.06.2019.
4(a) The OP No.4 further contended that the vehicle was towed to service centre of the OP No.4 and the complainant had informed the service executives that the vehicle was being dropped in for regular service and the pre-job card that was provided to the customer only accounted for basic labour costs and other related charges for a regular service. It is further contended that after inspection they realize that that oil sump of the vehicle was damaged and that the vehicle had run without engine oil due to which the engine had stalled and this was the reason why the vehicle stopped with a huge noise while it was being driven by the complainant. Thereafter they immediately intimated the complainant about the same and provided with a quotation for Rs.56,406/- for affecting repairs on the vehicle, but the complainant has failed to provide approval for repair the vehicle.
4(b) The OP No.4 further contended that the delay in collecting the copy of the insurance with respect to the vehicle has been caused by the complainant herself and the OP No.4 cannot be blamed for the same. The OP No.4 further contended that he has informed the complainant while providing the quotation for the repairs that repairs will not be covered under the warranty as the damages caused to the vehicle was due to the negligent use by the complainant. It is further contended that the vehicle sold to the complainant has no defects whatsoever and the damages sustained to the vehicle were on account of the negligent use by the complainant. The engine of the vehicle stalled since the complainant drove the vehicle without engine oil and the reason why the engine oil had drained was on account of the oil sump being damaged/broken which happened due to the negligent use of the complainant.
4(c) The OP No.4 further contended that the complainant has not given approval for repair of the vehicle and therefore the vehicle was in the service centre and instead of giving approval, the complainant has been putting forward frivolous demands such as replacing the vehicle and/or getting the vehicle repaired under the warranty. It is further contended that the complainant got issued legal notice on 20.03.2020 and the same was suitably replied by this OP. The complainant without having any valid reason with malafide intention approached this Commission. Due to the negligent act of the complainant, the car of the complainant got repaired. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. On these among other grounds, the OP No.4 prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. Both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. Complainant marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P12. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R5. OP No.4 marked the two visible photos at Ex.D1 & D2.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and also perused the materials on record. The points that would arise for determination are as under:
1) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased a Renault Kwid RXT Climber bearing registration No.KA-06-Z-2767 from OP4 on 06.06.2019 for Rs.4,39,299/-. It is also undisputed that OP1 has registered head office at Chennai, whereas OP2 is Regional office at Mumbai and OP3 is Sales and Marketing at Gurgaon and OP4 is the authorized dealer of Renault India Private Limited at Tumkur. There is no dispute that the said car purchased by the complainant is in warranty period i.e. two years or 50,000 k.m. (whichever is earlier). The issue in dispute is that, the OP4 has sold on defective car to the complainant with intention to defraud and deceive the complaint.
9. The complainant submitted that, one day car was suddenly stopped with huge noise and next day the car was taken to the show room by way of tow, by paying Rs.4,000/-. In contrary, complainant has not mentioned a particular date when the car was stopped with huge noise and complainant did not produce the any document to prove that, she has spent Rs.4,000/- to tow the stopped car.
10. Ex.P6 & R1 are, Pre Job Slip report issued by the OP4. The complainant argued that, initially OP4 has issued pre job slip report for Rs.11,610/- and after lapse of one month, OP4 has given quotation for repairing the said vehicle which amounts to Rs.56,406/-, accordingly, complainant not produced any materials to prove the same. On perusing the Ex.P6 & R1 that there is no such date when the pre Job Slip report is issued to complainant. Ex.P6 & Ex.R1 is only reflects the date of first free service i.e. 14.08.2019 in last visit date column. Hence, we have not come to conclusion that OP4 has given quotation after the lapse of one month. We have no other way to believe on the submission made by OP4 as they have given a quotation after the inspection of the car.
11. Further, the complainant submitted that, the car was within the warranty period as per Ex.P2, the warranty book i.e. two years or 50,000 k.m. (whichever is earlier) and the said car has seized when it was just run 9,711 k.m. Further, complainant submitted that OP4 has given quotation of Rs.56,406/- and OP4 has denied to give free service to the car which is in warranty period. In contrary, OP4 has argued that oil sump of the car is damaged and free repairs are not covered under warranty as the mechanical damage result of negligent use of vehicle by the complainant and produced Ex.R4 and its annexures (Copies of the Photos of car) and Ex.D2 & D3 visible photos of the car which are clearly reflects the car number and damaged/broken oil sump of the car. Further, Ex.P6 (Pre Job Slip report) is reveals as "oil sump is damage oil leakage from under body" in the column of "Customer Verbatim" and in "Body Damage Check" column, the OP4 has marked the damaged part in front portion of the car. As per Ex.R4 and its annexure (Photos of the car) and visible photos/Ex.D2 & D3, it is prima-facie looks like that damage was caused to the car by negligent use by the complainant. Ex.P2/warranty Terms and Conditions also reveals in Point-4 as under
“The RENAULT New Vehicle Warranty does not cover and Renault India Private Limited (RIPL) and / or RENAULT authorized workshop shall not be responsible for the following”
and in Point 4.6 it is written as under
“Damage or failure resulting due to the following causes:
4.6.1 Poor vehicle maintenance, in particular if the instructions for the treatment, the frequency of maintenance or are to be applied to the vehicle set out in the Owner’s manual have not been observed.
4.6.2 Due to lack of use/operation of vehicle over prolonged period(s);
4.6.3 Misuse, abuse, negligence, improper driving habits, theft, etc. of the vehicle.
According to the above points, the said vehicle has not any warranty
12. Further, the complainant has submitted that, it is known that every vehicle engine Oil should be exchanged in the every free service, if the engine oil was completely dried then it is purely the negligence and service deficiency of the OP4. In the same time, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that OP4 has not exchanged the engine oil in first free service
13. The OP Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that they are marketing vehicles of Renault Brand and sells them to its authorized dealers and that there is no effective role or control of the OP1 to OP3 in further sale of vehicle by such authorized dealers to any prospective buyers. Further, OPs1 to 3 have submitted that the relation between the OP1 to OP3 and OP4 is not the "Principal to Agent" but "Principal to Principal" basis, by virtue of dealership agreement executed between the parties. OP1 to OP3 have produced Ex.R5 extract of dealership agreement which reveals as follows:
"Clause-3: the relationship between RIPL and DEALER shall be on the principal to principal basis. Therefore, nothing in this agreement shall be construed as authorizing the DEALER to act, register or otherwise represents as agent of RIPL"
OP1 to OP3 in their version quoted that “In Maruti Suzuki India Limited V/s Vijayan V. Anand and others III (2015) CPJ 16 (NC) the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that, the relationship between the petitioners and OP Nos. 2 & 3 (authorized dealers) was on Principal to Principal basis. Hence, petitioner was not liable to give any compensation for the fault of the dealer”. According to the above judgment and clause 3 of Ex.R5 (extract of dealership agreement) OPs 1 to 3 are not liable to given any compensation or not liable to exchange the defective car sold to complainant with new one to the complainant.
14.- The complainant has not produced any documents to show that she has suffered huge loss in her profession and business without vehicle since more than 8 months and complainant has using a hired Taxi for her daily work with spending more than Rs.2,000/- per day.
15. The complainant has to prove inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle within the warranty period through an expert mechanical/automobile engineer for replacement of entire vehicle with new one or refund of its costs as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between C.N.Ananthram V/s Fiat India Ltd.,. The complainant has not placed such record of expert opinion report on record. In the absence of such expert opinion, we do not inclined to accept the version of the complainant that the vehicle having inherent manufacturing defect and it is liable to be replaced with new one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment as stated supra, squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. Hence, the complaint is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-
-:ORDER:-
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed without cost
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
