RENAULT INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. SHAILENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition s filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against impugned order dtd. 5/1/2018, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab ('State Commission') in FA No. 700/ 2016 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and Affirmed the Order dtd. 2/6/2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda ('District Forum') in CC No.388 of 2014.

(2.) For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. is referred to Petitioners/OP-2&3. Shailender Kumar is denoted as Respondent No.1/Complainant and Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. is referred to as Respondent No.2/OP1.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he purchased a Pulse Diesel car from Renault Company, relying on assurances of warranty and best services. However, shortly after purchase, the car started having operational issues and eventually stopped working. Despite efforts to have the car repaired under warranty, the company refused, citing alleged poor maintenance by the Complainant as cause of the engine failure. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of the company, as they were within the extended warranty period and entitled to have the car repaired at no cost. Despite legal notices and requests for repair, the company failed to respond or address the issue. Being aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum seeking repair or replacement of the engine, reimbursement of expenses already incurred, and compensation for the mental tension, harassment, and financial losses suffered as a result of the company's actions.