Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri R.K.Mahakur and others
Adv. For O.P :- None
Date of filing of the Case :- 25.02.2020
Date of Order :-14.10.2020
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, she had purchased a TATA TIAGO XZ + vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD05AS1213 from the O.P. 1 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 586032/- on dated 19.7.19. The said vehicle is covered under the warranty for a period of 24 months or up to 75000 Kms. from the date of purchase. The complainant availed the first free service on dated 28.8.19. in the service center of O.P. 2. After the said service the complainant found defect in the windshield nozzle and discolor in the body of the vehicle. To this the husband of the complainant took the vehicle to the service center of O.P.3 wherein the O.P.3 repair the nozzle and advice the complainant to take the vehicle to the service center of O.P.1 for removal of the defect relating to discolor of the vehicle. Accordingly the complainant reported the same before the manufacturer and took the vehicle to the service center of O.P.1 wherein the O.P.1 demanded Rs. 40000/- towards repairing charges for removal of the defect relating to color of the vehicle. The complainant alleges that during warranty period the O.Ps. have not provided defect free service and till date the defect in the vehicle has not been removed and demanding service charges by the service center is illegal. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on the O.Ps. neither they appeared nor have filed their version and hence they are set experte vide order dated 21.8.20.
3. Heard the learned advocate for the complainant. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. In support of her case the complainant has filed copy of registration certificate, sale certificate, tax invoice issued by the service center and copy of terms and conditions of warranty.
4. It is evident from the sale certificate issued by the O.P.1 on dated 19.7.19 that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from O.P.1 on payment of consideration. The vehicle is warranted for a period of 24 months for repairing or replacing the defective parts. It is evident from the tax invoice issued by the different authorized service center that, the vehicle is not free from defects. The complainant in her complaint petition supported by an affidavit has pleaded that, the defects in the vehicle are removed on payment of service cost amounting to Rs.40000/-. This offer of the service center indicates that, the defects are repairable.
5. Now it is to be seen whether demand of service charges during warranty period is fair or not. Perused the warranty terms and conditions issued by the manufacturer wherein the obligation of the manufacturer is “ Our obligation under the warranty shall be limited to repairing or replacing free of charge such parts of the car which in our opinion are defective on the car being brought to us or to our dealers within the period.” The parts which are excluded from warranty has been mentioned in para6 of the warranty conditions which reads as “this warranty shall not apply to the replacement of normal wear parts including without limitation spark plugs, drive belts hoses wiper blades fuses clutch disc brake shoes, brake pads cables and all rubber parts”. The complainant has repeatedly complained of for the defect of windshield nozzle and discolor which is not excluded from the warranty and the O.Ps. are duty bound to remove the defects free of charges and hence demanding repairing charges by the O.P. cannot said to be fair.
6. There is no evidence available on record to show that the defects in the vehicle has been removed. The non removal of the defects during warranty either by the manufacturer or dealer amounts to deficiency in service. In this context it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble National commission in Tata Motors Ltd. versus Bishambar Nath Sikka reported in 2017(4) CPR 586 (NC) wherein it has been held that,” It has been held by this commission in a number of cases that a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of manufacturing defect or otherwise, a vehicle is suffering from defect if there was any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity, or standard which was required to be maintained under any law in force. We are supported in this view from an earlier judgment of this commission delivered in Revision Petition No. 7/2013 Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vrs Sunanda Sangwan decided on 20.9.13. The petitioner manufacturer has taken the plea that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defects and hence they had no liability in the matter. Considering the view taken in the orders quoted above, it is very clear that the vehicle did suffer from defects as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of a car is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop a number of times unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. Under these circumstances it becomes the duty of the manufacturer as well as the dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a roadworthy condition free from all defects . In the present case however the same appears not to have been done”
7. Under the aforesaid discussion and position of law it is concluded that the ops. are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
The O.Ps. are directed to repair the complainant’s vehicle free from all defects free of cost immediately after receipt of this order. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.25000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall bear an interest @ 9% PA till payment.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 14th day of October’ 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
