PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 38/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Subodh Panigrahi, aged about 55 years,

S/O-Late SurendraPanigrahi,

R/O-Gujrati Colony, Dhuchurapada, Ps-Town

PO/Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha                                                  ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Proprietor, M/S LANKESWARI MOTORS PVT. LTD TATA motors Limited At-Bhalupali, PO-Sankarma, Ps-Ainthapali,
2.  
2. TATA Motors Limited, Mumbai, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road MIDC, Andheri East, India-400093   .....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. P.K.Kar & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. L.K.Panigrahi, & Associates.
3. For the O.P.No.2               :- Sri. S.K. Mohanty & Associates

Date of Filing:06.02.2024,  Date of Hearing :30.07.2024,  Date of Judgement :23.09.2024

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a TATA Harrier motor car from O.P.No.1 dealer on 11.04.2019 and in addition to normal warranty for 2 years availed extended warranty for 3 years by paying Rs. 25,960/- additional charges. The insurance is valid up to 10.04.2024.

On 30.12.2023 the vehicle encountered problem in the engine like overheating and contacted the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 submitted an estimate of Rs. 96,677/- and asked the Complainant to bear the cost. The O.P.No.1 refused to give free service on the pretext that the Complaint has not availed free services.

Prior to O.P.No.1 Maa Samaleswari Automobiles was the dealer and O.P.No.1 has taken over the unit. During intervening period service was not available for about one year and the Complainant was compelled to mail service under Trupti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar. At times there was heavy rushes in service centre of O.P. No.1 and the service enginer advised to change the coolant elsewhere. The vehicle is with O.P.No.1 detained and for non-serving the Complainant is suffering a lot. Being aggrieved complaint has been filed.

2. The O.P.No.1 dealer submitted that it is a Pvt.Ltd. company under O.P.No.2 company as dealer and service provider. The Complainant purchased the vehicle from M/S Maa Mamaleswari Automobiles. Warranty was for 2 years w.e.f. 11.04.2019. The Complainant availed extended warranty for another 3 years. The Complainant violated the exclusion clause “Tata Motors will not accept any liability for damage caused by missing and scheduled maintenance service.”

The 2^nd service was delayed by 10 months and 3^rd year/45000Km service has been missed which was scheduled in April 2023. For such reason the Complainant was demanded Rs. 93,956.32P. For replacement of EGR Assy. O.P.No.1 stared its operation after closure of Maa Samaleswari Automobiles. Complainant availed service of O.P.No.1 on 17.06.2020. Due to negligence of the Complainant he missed the extended warranty. Coolant was replaced outside on the advise of service engineer, this statement is not true. The service engineer never advised to change the coolant outside.

After receipt of direction from the Commission the O.P.No.1 repaired the vehicle and on receipt of final bill the O.P.No.1 delivered the vehicle to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service of the O.P.

3. The O.P.No.2 submitted that TATA Motors Passenger vehicles ltd. is the registered name of O.P.No.2 and filed petition to amend the name. The O.P.No.2 provides service through the dealer. The O.P.No.2 is the manufacturer and relationship with O.P.No.1 is principal to principal basis. There is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2 as the Complainant violated the exclusion clause of extended warranty.

The Complainant delayed the 2^nd year 1^st paid service by one year although schedule date was 11.04.2021/30000Km but took the service on 06.04.2022/28592Kms. During 4^th year 3^rd paid service schedule date 11.04.2023/60,000Kms but the Complainant not availed the same and violated the exclusion clause.

4. Perused the documents filed by the parties. The Complainant paid Rs. 25,960/- on 31.10.2019 to-wards 3 years unlimited Kms extended warranty. For job card dated 02.01.2024 the O.P.No.1 supplied estimate of Rs. 96,677.62P

The O.P.No.2 submitted the documents relating to service history of the vehicle, extended warranty terms and conditions letter.

The Complainant on 10.07.2024 submitted the tax-invoice dated 29.03.2024 with a note on it “Driver side inner door handle cover missing will replace the missing part on free of cost basis.” The Complainant paid Rs. 1,01,502/- to the O.P.No.1 on 29.03.202 and got back his vehicle.

5. The O.P.No.2 submitted a petition to make amendment of name of the company as TATA Motors passengers vehicle Ltd. Petition is allowed and necessary amendment has been made.
6. From the extended warranty terms conditions it is a condition precedent that:

1. The vehicle must be within the coverage period of the extended warranty.
2. Owner of the vehicle is responsible to produce all necessary documents/records to prove that the vehicle has been serviced and maintained at the prescribed interval as per the periodic maintenance schedule through TATA motors Authorised dealer/service centre, service points or service outlets
3. The owner must produce the original the extended warranty booklet to Dealer/Authorised repairer.

From the submission of O.Ps it reveals that the Complainant during 2^nd year and 1^st paid service scheduled date 11.04.2021 not take the service of O.P.s and it was delayed till 06.04.2022. Further during 4^th year 3^rd paid service although it was due on 11.04.2023 totally servicing was not done. The Complainant submitted that due to taking over of service station by O.P.No.1 from Maa Samaleswari Automobiles service was not available for which servicing was done at Tirupati Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Bhubanswar. This contention can not be accepted as the unit was taken over by O.P.No.1 since June 2020 and the Complainant availed service on 17.06.2020. Further the Complainant has not availed the 4h year service due on 11.04.2023 and after that filed this complaint. To avail the extended warranty the Complainant has not followed the conditions and the O.P.No.2 rightly demanded for the estimated cost.

7. The Complainant submitted that the vehicle was taken from O.P. No.1 on 29.03.2024 on payment of Rs. 1,01,502/-. Detention of the vehicle in service centre is due to latches of the Complainant and deficiency in service is not there on the part of O.Ps.

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed along with the I.A. Case No. 02/2024. No cost and compensation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23^rd day of Sept. 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.