KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 625/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 20..4..2012
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
1. The Managing Director, : APPELLANTS
TATA Motors, Bombay,
House No.24, Hominday Street,
Fort, Mumbai.
(By Adv.Menon and Menon)
2. Sri.Ajay Pothen,
Managing Director,
TATA Servicing Centre,
Kulathunkal Motors, Kowdiar Post,
Thiruvananthapuram -3.
1. Sri.V.A.Anilkumar, : RESPONDENTS
Anandha Bhavan, Kuthiathodu.P.O.,
Cherthala.
(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan – Amicus curiae for R1)
2. Sri.Abraham Thomas,
Aloor Gracy Bhavanam,
Kodamthuruthu, Kuthiathodu.P.O.,
Cherthala.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 the manufacturer and dealer respectively in CC 126/07 in the file of CDRF, Alleppey. The appellants are under orders to replace the complainant’s vehicle with a brand new model or if the similar brand is not available to refund the cost of the car and also to pay 15000/- as compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that the Tata Safari Dicor LX vehicle purchased by him on 15.9.06 was having so many defects ie, the remote/central locking not functioning properly, AC fan not working properly, sun control film not properly fixed, plat form mat was not found , fog lamp complaint, rear seat damaged, a bent on the rear portion of the body, park light not properly working , broken net below the rear seat and emblem on rear portion damaged. The car was delivered at the residence of the complainant on 16.9.06. Besides the leather seat cover which was offered was also not found. Only the park lights were repaired by the 2nd opposite party. The rest of the complaints remained unattended. Later an unusual sound developed on the rear side of the car. All requests for repairs were turned futile. Complainant issued a lawyer notice on 24.10.06 for which a reply has been received containing untenable contentions. The defects are still persisting. It was the 3rd opposite party is a neighbor who persuaded the complainant to purchase the above car. The complainant has sought for replacement of the car with a brand new model or in the alternative to direct the opposite parties to rectify all the defects and also to pay compensation of Rs.25000/-.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed separate versions denying the allegations raised in the complaint. It is admitted that the vehicle was delivered at the residence of the complainant and that the complainant was fully satisfied with the same. It is also contended that the complainant has not intimated the defects to the opposite parties. Only on 30.9.06 the vehicle was brought to the service centre with minor complaints like AC cooling insufficient, brake light not glowing, fog lamp not working etc. The complaints were immediately attended to. The brake light was replaced. The fog lamp was not working as there was something wrong with the relay switch. It could not be replaced as the complainant wanted the delivery of the vehicle on the same day. The complainant had acknowledged full satisfaction for the work done. The complainant was asked to bring the vehicle on a near date but the complainant wanted the fog lamp sent to him . It was so sent on 9.11.06 by courier. The allegation that the leather seat cover was offered is false. The alleged unusual sound was not brought to the notice of the opposite parties. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, RW1, CW1 Exts.A1 to A10 and C1.
5. The Forum has directed replacement on the basis of the report of the expert Commissioner as mentioned above. The judgment is so cryptic that it did not contain any discussion of the evidence adduced.
6. As per Ext.A2 invoice the price of the vehicle is Rs.7,60,542/-. The complainant has testified in support of the averments in the complaint. Evidently the park light was repaired by the opposite parties. It is admitted in the cross examination that the defects to the central locking system has been rectified. Ext.C1 is the report of the Commissioner. In the report the Commissioner it is noted that the remote central locking system is not working properly. He has stated that the same can be rectified. It is further mentioned that the AC fan is not working properly. The sun control film found dislocated and damaged was rectified by the complainant it is mentioned. The Commissioner has noted that the three plat form mats were not found and that the same should be supplied. The fog lamp was rectified by the complainant in a separate work shop. The right side upholstery stitching of the rear seat was found damaged. There is a little bent on the rear body hinge cap of right side. It is a small part and it can be replaced. The park light was rectified by the complainant from an outside work shop. The rear deep pillar inner trim cover at left side(plastic) leg is seen broken. The same should be rectified. On rear Safari monogram of the emblem the alphabet ‘I’ was found missing from the delivery time. It is mentioned that it has been rectified by the complainant himself. It is also stated that the complainant mentioned that there is some unusual sound from the rear side of the vehicle. It is stated that the reason for the above sound could not be found out and that it may be from suspension, steering or rattling of the door. There was another inspection on 4.11.08. The first inspection was on 22.10.08. At the 2nd inspection it is mentioned that with respect to the air condition system the rear side cooling was less when compared with other AC vehicles. It is noted that this may be due to minor defects like clogging of condenser etc. The same can be rectified. The Commissioner has also mentioned that there is a sound which could not be identified. He has mentioned that it can be due to rattling of doors or from suspension system. It is also mentioned it is not a major defect. He has noted that the defects noted are not major in nature.
7. We find that the complainant has been filed on 20.6.07 which has after nine months of purchase. The inspection by the Commissioner was done after two years of purchase. As per Ext.A9 copy of the job card on 15.10.07 the KM noted is 11,682. In the objection filed to the Commissioner’s report it is noted that the vehicle had till then covered 50000 KMs. The vehicle is in the possession of the complainant for six years by now. The report of the Commissioner is not at all helpful to pinpoint any manufacturing defect as such although it is mentioned that there is an unusual sound emanating from the rear. There is no information as to the present condition of the vehicle.
8. The 1st respondent/complainant remained absent. A counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to represent the complainant. It is submitted by the appellant that it is the information that the complainant has already sold the vehicle. All the same we find that the Commissioner has specifically noted that the cooling is not that effective as in other vehicles. There was also an abnormal sound and the Commissioner could not pin point the place. Any way the order of the Forum directing replacement of the vehicle
cannot be sustained . The above order of Forum is set aside. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the air condition system is not efficient and also that there is some unusual sound while in motion we find that it would be sufficient to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation to the complainant with interest at 6% from the date of complaint. The direction to pay a compensation of Rs.15000/- is set aside.
9. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to make the payment of Rs.50000/- with interest at 6% from the date of complaint within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest at 12% from 20.4.2012 the date of this order.
Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI
ps
