Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/278/2017

Mrs.Aishwari Sudhakar Shetty, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Trident Auto Enterprises Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

Before the 4th Addl District consumer forum, 1st Floor, B.M.T.C, B-Block, T.T.M.C, Building, K.H. Road, Shantinagar, Bengaluru - 560027
H.Y.Vasanth Kumar, President
 
Complaint Case No. CC/278/2017
 
1. Mrs.Aishwari Sudhakar Shetty,
Aged about 30 years, Flat No T-7,Saai Swarna Madhura,Venkadadri Layout, JP Nagar 5th Phase, Bengalore 560076.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Trident Auto Enterprises Limited,
Hosur Road, Bengaluru 560068.
2. Renault India Head office,
T Nagar,Chennai 600017.
3. Mr.Sumit Sawhney,
CEO of Renault India, T Nagagr,Chennai 600017.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. D.SURESH MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. N.R.ROOPA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 06 Sep 2017
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

Under section 12(3) of consumer protection Act. 1986.

 

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

 

             The Complainant has sought direction against the Opposite party no.1/dealer, Opposite parties no.2 & 3/manufacturer for replacement of her car alternatively, for refund of its cost Rs.15.84 lakhs and to pay Rs.450/- per day per daily travel and additional cost to got to Opposite party address, alleging the unfair trade practice in selling the defective car and deficiency in service in not repairing it properly.

         

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that she purchased Renault Duster car KA-01-MN-8098 of Opposite parties no.2 & 3/manufacturer, from the Opposite party no.1/dealer on 26.04.16 and when she was driving it on 04.02.17 found the problem of automatic gear shifting and it was repaired on the next day on her request and then she came to know that it was because of impure fuel filled in the tanker for which she paid Rs.3,600/-. The same problem occurred again repeatedly, which made her to call the roadside assistance. The Opposite party no.1 demanded Rs.2.3 lakhs to fix the said issue, holding the problems as because of her mistake and even threatened to cancel the warranty. The Manager of the Opposite party no.1 promised to pay 50% of the cost which shows that it has become defective vehicle manufactured by the Opposite parties no.2 & 3. If the water was present in the fuel, it would have created the problem immediately and not after 5-6 days after fuelling the vehicle. The fuel/diesel was filled from reputed petrol bunks and hence this complaint.

 

          3. The Complainant has relied on seven documents. Doc.no.1/estimate is of repairs for Rs.2,79,545/- dtd.11.02.17, doc.no.4/auto assistance break down service report dtd.09.02.17 with repair invoice for Rs.2,568/- is dtd.08.02.17. Doc.no.6/arrangement letter was held between Sri.Sandeep Shriyan and the Opposite party no.1. Doc.no.7 is the email copies.

 

          4. In all the title documents of the vehicle and its repair documents including the arrangement letter/doc.no.6, Sri.Sandeep Shriyan is shown as the owner of the vehicle who also insured the said vehicle wide doc.no.2/cover note with Tata AIG Insurance Co., Nowhere the name of the Complainant Smt.Aishwari Shetty shown as the owner of the said car. Even the emails of the Opposite party and others addressed Sri.Sandeep Shriyan. Even the Opposite parties no.2 & 3 through email dtd.13.02.17 addressing the said Sri.Sandeep Shriyan stated that the reported problems can only be attributed to impure fuelling and the Opposite party no.1/dealer drained the said fuel and carried out the cleaning process in his presence and the further problems are consequential to the filling of impure fuel which cannot be connected to vehicle’s quality/repairs.

 

          5. The Complainant has stated that she has been using the car from August 2016 till February 2017. The Complainant is not the owner and is not authorized by the owner to file this complaint and thereby she does not become the consumer and the Complainant and on this point only, the Complainant has no locus standi to seek any remedy. The said car used for more than 5½ months without problems requires the expert report to say how it consists of manufacturing defects. If at all the fuelling of impure diesel as alleged by the Opposite party no.1 was not the problem, the Complainant ought not to have paid the refueling charges of Rs.3,600/- and could have challenged it as wrong diagnosing after they warned about cancelling of warranty. Problem in fueling system found after 5 months of usage of the car cannot be connected with the manufacturing defect unless expert report is annexed. In the absence of the requirements for seeking the first/alternative remedy disqualify her to seek subsequent irrelevant remedies also. Accordingly the Complainant does not deserve to get admission and accordingly the following:

         

                       ORDER

 

 

The CC.No.278/2017 filed by the Complainant is rejected u/s 12(3) of CP Act. No order as to costs.         

 

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 06th September 2017).

 

      

 

       (SURESH.D)

         MEMBER

         

 

          (ROOPA.N.R)

   MEMBER

 

 

 (VASANTHKUMAR.H.Y)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.SURESH]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. N.R.ROOPA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.