CONSUMER CASE NO.- 42/2020
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The facts of the case as reveals from the complaint petition filed by complainant Shri Mallik Uddin Choudhury , in brief, are that the complainant purchased an LPK1618TC bearing chasis no.-MAT449053K2111345, Engine No.- ISB5.9B4S180K191J63807790 from the showroom of Respondent no.-1 Surana Motors (P) Ltd. at the value of Rs.24,90,542/- . The Respondent No.-1 issued sale certificate on 23/11/2019 and the vehicle was hypothecated with TATA Motors Finance Ltd. After receiving the vehicle the complainant found that the chasis of the said vehicle was cracked and he informed the matter to the customer care and thereafter as per advice of the respondent no.-1 the complainant brought the vehicle to Surana Motors’s workshop where crack was detected on the chasis of the alleged vehicle by the workshop attendant. It is further stated by the complainant that the respondent no.-1 gave a new chasis to the complainant but the said chasis is also found defective. Though the warranty period is in operation but the respondent no.-1 avoided the complainant with this or that pretext. According to the complainant for non-plying of the vehicle on the road for commercial purpose due to defective chasis he has suffered loss about Rs. 7,00,000/- ( Rupees seven lakh ) and it has occurred due to negligence of the respondent. Under the circumstances, the complainant has claimed from the Respondents Rs. 7,00,000/- towards loss of use of vehicle, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony, stress etc. and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards interest.
The Opposite Parties have filed written statement stating, interalia that there is no reason or cause for filing the instant complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and manner under the consumer Protection Act, that the instant complaint is premature in nature etc. etc. It is stated by the O.Ps. that upon receipt of the complaint dated 22/09/2020 regarding chasis frame crack the same was duly attended outside the workshop of the answering O.Ps. and the vehicle was released after observing all formalities for warranty policy and the report was duly forwarded to the Principal M/S Tata Motors Ltd. and the Tata Motors agreed to replace the chasis frame. Subsequently,upon receipt of the chasis frame the answering O.Ps. informed the complainant to bring the vehicle to their workshop at Sildubi . On11/11/2020 the complainant brought his vehicle there and accordingly job card was opened on 12/11/2020 vide JC No. 3276. The workshop staffs dismantled the entire vehicle by 16/11/2020. But while fitting the new chasis frame some abnormalities were observed in the frame and the said matter was informed to M/S Tata Motors who advised the answering O.Ps. to order a new chasis frame again and replace the same and accordingly the answering O.Ps. replace the chasis frame and released the vehicle on 15/12/2020 and waited for the new chasis to arrive. The answering O.Ps. have claimed that the complainant was assured that upon receipt of the new chasis frame the same would be replaced in place of the existing one in his vehicle but the complainant unnecessarily without any just cause and for wrongful gain filed the instant case. It is stated by the O.Ps. that they are ready to replace the chasis frame once again under warranty condition and with that view they also issued letter to the complainant. According to the answering O.Ps. the claim of the complainant for damages to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- is not tenable . Further averment of the answering O.Ps. is that the warranty in respect of the vehicle is given by M/S Tata Motors Ltd. and it is also the prerogative of Tata Motors either to accept or reject the warranty claim and the answering O.Ps. have no say in this matter. It is maintained that in the instant case there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by the answering O.Ps. Under the circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in the case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In support of the case the complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit as PW-1 being supported by some Exhibited documents. On the other hand from the side of answering O.Ps. evidence on affidavit of DW-1 Sri Rajkumar Rajesh Singh has been submitted. That apart some exhibits also have been submitted by DW-1. Thereafter both the parties have submitted respective written argument. We have also heard oral argument. Perused the entire evidence on record.
Perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the DW-1 in his evidence has categorically taken the plea that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is stated by him that M/S Tata Motors is the necessary party of this case. From the case record it reveals that the complainant has filed this case claiming compensation as he could not ply his vehicle on road commercially due to defect in the chasis frame. The vehicle in question in this case was purchased by the complainant from Tata Motors through their dealer Surana Motors (P) Ltd. Silchar. The defective chasis was supplied by Tata motors company and as the complainant has claimed compensation in the case for not plying of the vehicle due to the defect in the chasis so for that if any one is responsible it is Tata Motors company and not the O.P. Surana Motors. As such in this case M/S Tata Motors is the necessary party and as Tata Motors has not been made party in this case so the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.
Another point raised by DW-1 is that the case is premature. It reveals from the case record that upon receipt of the complaint of defect in the chasis frame of the alleged vehicle it was intimated to M/S Tata Motors company and they sent one new chasis for replacement. But while replacing the chasis it was found that the new chasis is also defective. Then again it was informed to M/S Tata Motors by the O.P. and they agreed to send a new chasis for the vehicle as there was warranty period. The case record shows that the complainant without waiting for replacement of his defective chasis frame by a new one has filed this case. Under the circumstances it can be said that the case is premature one.
In the present case the complainant has claimed compensation for not plying his vehicle due to defect in the chasis frame. It is clear from the case record that the alleged vehicle was purchased for using the same for commercial purpose. The submission of the O.P. side is that as the vehicle was purchased for business purpose so the complainant can not be considered as a consumer. It also has not been proved in the case that the complainant purchased the alleged vehicle for use of the same exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Under the circumstances from this commission the complainant can not get any relief in the nature of any loss as claimed to have been incurred by him for not plying the vehicle for business purpose.
In view of the above, the present case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also for other reasons stated above the case is not maintainable. Accordingly the case stands dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. No costs.
The judgment is delivered on this 26th day of May’2023 under our seal and signature.
