[GTO]

Kamalkant Kalia shares his very serious predicament with us via this Team-BHP page!

Summary, thanks to blackwasp:

He gave his broken-down Renault Duster to the Renault RSA on June 1, 2018. The car was towed to PMG Renault @ Chandigarh for repairs. The promised delivery date was 8th July, but due to a busy schedule, Kamalkant told them to keep the car till the 18th.

On 16th July, he received a call to take the car urgently. Kamalkant said he'll come the next day. Before he could take delivery (luckily), the local police (Sector 14 Panchkula station) called him about a case being registered and asked for the car's whereabouts. Kamalkant told the police that his car was in the Renault authorised service center. The Police proceeded to impound the car.

Unfortunately in the accident, a 6 year old child lost its life on the spot. The driver fled the accident scene with the car.

He wanted to file a rebuttal FIR, but was denied the same in Panchkula, so he filed the FIR in Shimla. The car is still impounded.

The other FIR:

[V.Narayan]

Requesting all lawyers on T-BHP if you could share your informal advice and guidance to help the owner and also what can or should be done for the deceased child's family and what the owner needs to do to protect himself from mischief by the police.

[GTO]

Renault just replied. Pasted below. Kamalkant asked for the child's family to be compensated, and that his vehicle "be replaced with a vehicle as a goodwill gesture with an equivalent car". It frankly can be argued whether or not this is a case for replacement. I don't think so at the moment and certainly not unless his car is held up for very long time with the police. However, there is definitely a case for a 'courtesy car' to be provided by the dealer until his Duster is freed up.

Dear Mr. Kalia,

Greetings from Renault India!

This is with reference to your appended mail.

The incident bears our fullest sympathy . We are given to understand that our Dealership team has been in touch with you and has kept you appraised regarding the incident.

While the incident was unfortunate, we would like to assure you the same was unintended and as a manufacturer we shall not be able to support you towards the demands made in your mail.

Further, we are requesting Mr. Sunil Verma from Dealer team to connect with you.

Regards

Neetu Chawla

Customer Support Team

[Chetan_Rao]

I'm no lawyer, but it was really smart on the owner's part (in a horrifying situation, no less) to file an FIR of his own. Spares him potential hassle with proving who exactly was in possession of the car at the time of incident.

That said, what are things coming to? On top of already abysmal A.S.S. customers have to put up with and be vigilant against, they now also have to wonder if someone was killed with a car in the dealership's possession for repairs?

Accidents happen, and while it's impossible to comment on the specific circumstances of the incident without details being known, what happened afterwards is abhorrent behavior. Not informing the customer of the incident at all, and what appears to be an attempt to muddy the status of the car's possession/whereabouts before the cops came calling.

[revvharder]

As FIR has been filed by both the parties the case will be held in court. After the completion of investigation and IO says that the car can be released, an application of superdari will be filed by the owner and the car will be released. The Insurance company of the car owner and the dealership or driver (depends on what the dealership says) will have to compensate the parents of the deceased.
The owner will have to visit the court only to apply the superdari application for release of his vehicle. He should save all the calls with dealer as a proof if needed. The owner did the right thing of filing the FIR in time as he will not be liable for any damages.

[SDP]

Feel bad for the life lost. Also feel bad for the Duster owner for getting entangled in this mess without any fault of his.

As per my understanding, the car would get released soon, BUT can not be sold till all the court-proceedings are over. That can be a few years and is a unnecessary hassle and restriction for the owner. That could be the reason, why the car-owner is asking for a replacement car.

Except ensuring that the dealership falls in line and cooperates with the car-owner, I don't believe the manufacturer (Renault) has any role to play in this case.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by SDP

I don't believe the manufacturer (Renault) has any role to play in this case.

If Renault would have been replaced by a product from Maruti, chances are, things might be a bit different.

Whose fault it is, the dealer's? Whom does it represent, the company, Renault in this case. If grievances are not met by dealer, I am sure Renault will step in [if they care for their customers], else the Honorable Court/s will do the needful.

And where is the culprit, why has he not been identified yet?

[sandeepmdas]

Originally Posted by revvharder

As FIR has been filed by both the parties the case will be held in court. The owner did the right thing of filing the FIR in time as he will not be liable for any damages.

Absolutely. By making this single move he has saved himself by converting his position in the case from defendant to plaintiff. Giving the car to the authorized service center in your home town is not like giving it to a friend for an evening drive. The ASC/owner relationship is contractual in nature, means at least one written agreement is drawn to define the relationship and the circumstance of this "car exchange".


The said relationship assumes more strength if the car is under warranty, where the owner is bound to bring the car to an ASC.

Originally Posted by SDP

As per my understanding, the car would get released soon, BUT can not be sold till all the court-proceedings are over. That can be a few years and is a unnecessary hassle and restriction for the owner. That could be the reason, why the car-owner is asking for a replacement car.

Except ensuring that the dealership falls in line and cooperates with the car-owner, I don't believe the manufacturer (Renault) has any role to play in this case.

with the role of Renault.

[blackwasp]

Originally Posted by GTO

Renault just replied.

Pathetic, simply pathetic. If I was that dealer, I would accept the responsibility and give the chap a new Duster out of my pocket. We know what happened with the Isuzu V-Cross case in Pune!

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Accidents happen, and while it's impossible to comment on the specific circumstances of the incident without details being known...

There was no reason for the car to leave the premises, let alone be gone for a joyride with some employee. Maybe for testing, you can do a small loop around the dealership, but this is just not done.

Originally Posted by SDP

Except ensuring that the dealership falls in line and cooperates with the car-owner, I don't believe the manufacturer (Renault) has any role to play in this case.

I beg to differ here. There is a reason Renault sold 6.2k cars last month compared to Maruti's 1.52 lakh units. Just give the chap a new car and spare him the misery. Physically, the car might be in good shape, but I'm not sure if he could come to terms driving the car again after this accident. Personally, I won't be able to touch my car if someone else caused a fatal accident with my car.

Renault should man up and just get him a new car and apologise profusely - also provide him a competent lawyer on Renault's tab as legally he was the owner at the time of the accident. At the same time, they should come down hard on the dealer.

Originally Posted by Sheel

If Renault would have been replaced by a product from Maruti, chances are, things might be a bit different.

Whose fault it is, the dealer's? Whom does it represent, the company, Renault in this case. If grievances are not met by dealer, I am sure Renault will step in [if they care for their customers], else the Honorable Court/s will do the needful.

I agree, if it were Maruti, it would have been a different outcome for sure. Fault is with the dealer.

Originally Posted by sandeepmdas

Absolutely. By making this single move he has saved himself by converting his position in the case from defendant to plaintiff. Giving the car to the authorized service center in your home town is not like giving it to a friend for an evening drive. The ASC/owner relationship is contractual in nature, means at least one written agreement is drawn to define the relationship and the circumstance of this "car exchange".

How Renault and the dealer handles this will be the key now.

[Guna]

Here are my thoughts:

• Renault should put pressure on the dealer to own up responsibility and cooperate with the case proceedings. If the dealer doesn't listen they should severe ties.
• Dealer should either provide a new car or amount to the customer. Get the car transferred to the company name if possible.
• If things don't happen, raise hue and cry in the social media.

He should get the fact recorded (with witness, video with time stamp) that car was indeed picked up from the dealer's premise (and records showing that car was with the dealer when the accident happened)

[R2D2]

Very unfortunate indeed and the loss of a child's life is a real tragedy. May the departed soul RIP.

Car dealers make you sign an "indemnity form" when you hand the car over for a service appointment..and in the T&C AKA the fine print, the long and short of it is "we are not responsible for what happens to your car when it's with us. All risks are borne by the owner".

The present legal/court dispensation (covered in another post on TBHP) is to hold the owner responsible for ANY mishaps..even when a vehicle is sold and the RTO informed in requisite forms. The affected car owner should seek legal advice ASAP and approach the court for relief.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Guna

Renault should put pressure on the dealer to own up responsibility and cooperate with the case proceedings.

This .

While Renault has nothing to do with this incident, it can certainly put pressure on its authorised representative (i.e. the dealer) to step forward and help the Duster owner with a courtesy vehicle, legal support and the process of getting his car back.

Renault & the dealer cannot simply wash their hands off the issue.

[shipnil]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

Physically, the car might be in good shape, but I'm not sure if he could come to terms driving the car again after this accident. Personally, I won't be able to touch my car if someone else caused a fatal accident with my car.

This I totally agree with. Would like to share one incident.

One of my relatives owned a Scorpio. One night, it was stolen from his home in Maharashtra. He duly registered FIR. 3 months down the line he got to know that his car is located in Rajasthan with the local police. The vehicle was involved in an accident and someone died. He got his car back but he could never overcome the fact that some died due to this car. He sold it in few days time and moved on.

[varunsangal]

Originally Posted by GTO

Kamalkant Kalia shares his very serious predicament with us

It's sad to see yet another dealer misusing customers car and landing in trouble. This is an issue on multiple levels.

While I'm no lawyer, the FIR is for culpable homicide not amounting to murder against driver of the Duster. If the owner is not able to conclusively prove that he wasn't the one at the wheel at the time of accident, he could be running around courts and police station or in jail for a very long time.

That apart, most dealership have each owner sign an indemnity against any/all damage to the car when they say 'Saar please sign here'. ~99.99% do sign without reading what they are signing away. So don't think the dealership will come forth with any blood money, legal costs or a replacement car. The best bet might be to prove that this wasn't a case of rash and negligent driving and having the car insurance pay third part damages.

IMO, the counter FIR should also call out theft against the driver of the car rather than just breach of trust. For sure the dealership will not have a record of the Duster being taken on a joyride, so should qualify as theft of movable property or grand theft auto (if we have such a law?) by the driver.

Not sure what the SOP is around releasing cars involved in fatal accidents. But will Kamalkant Kalia even want to drive around in such a car?

[Nonstop-driver]

May the child rest in peace. While accidents happen, the dealership's actions are horrible. First, the employees took a customer's car for a joyride. On top of that, they tried to pass the liability by asking the customer to take his vehicle without informing of the incident. Goes on to show the mentality of the dealership's management. Pathetic, simply unacceptable. On Renault's part, they should take action against the dealership on basis of shoddy practices alone!