BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.43 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27-01-2014

Date of Decision: 25-06-2015  

Amarjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Garden Colony, Patti, Tarn Taran.

Complainant

Versus

1. Auto Kruze, authorized dealer of Tata Motors, G.T.Road (Jandiala), Amritsar.
2. Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, KD-03, Car Point, Sec:15 & 15-A, PCNTDA, Chikholi, PUNE.
3. Goodyear India Limited, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.  N.S.Mannan, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.N.S.Sandhu, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.S.K.Vyas, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Amarjit Singh  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a car Indica Vista VX ABS having registration No.PB46N-8425 from Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 and this car was provided with the tyres of Goodyear (Opposite Party No.3). Complainant alleges that after the running of the car after first service, complainant noticed that the tyres of the car worn out more than in normal conditions.  The complainant brought this fact in the notice of Opposite Party No.1 at the time of second service at 5014 KMs. Opposite Party No.1 assured that after the wheel balancing of the wheels, this problem will be resolved. As per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.1, wheel balancing was got done by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant paid charges for the said service of wheel balancing vide invoice No.Autkrz-Ap1-R-1213-03953 dated 23.3.2013. But inspite of wheel balancing, the complainant noticed that tyres of the car are again worn out then in normal conditions. Again this fact was brought in the notice of Opposite Party No.1 and again the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was done by Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant paid the charges for the said service vide invoice dated 6.7.2013. Even after the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car, said problem of worn out of tyres did not remove.  Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party No.3 whose tyres were provided with the said car at the time of purchase. The representative of the Opposite Party No.3 inspected the tyres of the car and gave the report dated 19.7.2013 and 27.9.2013 respectively according to which worn out percentage of tyres of the car is 43% at 15152 KM of cars distance covered which clearly shows that tyres worn out percentage is not normal inspite of proper wheal balancing and proper maintenance in time of the car. Complainant also approached Johal Motors (Tata authorised Service Centre, N-15, Amritsar Road, Zira) and requested for the solution of the tyres worn out. The technicians of Johan Motors again did the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and the complainant paid the charges for the same vide invoice dated 31.12.2013, but inspite of this, the problem still existed. As such, there is manufacturing defect in the car  which has not been rectified by the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the car with new one.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the allegations contained in the complaint are specifically denied. It is submitted that  agency of Opposite Party No.1 has already closed operation at the address given in the complaint w.e.f. 9.1.2014 and even sold the premises. Moreover, abnormal wear and tear of the tyres could be due to bad running of vehicle. Moreover, as per the directions of this Forum, the vehicle in question was checked at Automobile Kapoor’s India Private Limited on 24.6.2014 wherein it was found that the front left hand side bumper w shitted and also front splash guard also broken with suspension arm bend due to being hit (accidental damage) which needed to be replaced and the said accidental damage could not be covered under warranty. Said part ‘Suspension Arm’ required immediate replacement, but the vehicle was being driven in such like condition and the driver of the vehicle refused replacement of the part shows casual approach of the driver  with this regard. As on 24.6.2014 this damaged suspension arm was the reason for bad alignment of the vehicle. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief in this frivolous complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false.      While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question without providing any material particulars nor has annexed any expert report from a recognized laboratory in support of the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted that the vehicle was brought at 5014 KMs for second free service. At that time, the complainant requested for wheel balancing of the wheels of the car. After carrying out 2^nd  service and  wheel balancing of the wheels of the car, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. The wheel balancing of the wheels of the car is carried out due to normal wear and tear and thus, the same is chargeable. As per records, maintained by the answering Opposite Party, the vehicle was brought on 6.7.2013 at 10336 KMs for carrying out 3^rd service. At that time the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was carried out  by Opposite Party No.1. However, it is submitted that wheel balancing of the wheels of the car needs to be carried out due to bad driving habits, such apply of brakes frequently, drive on bad roads, etc. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion in support of his averments. On 31.12.2013 the vehicle was brought at the workshop of Johal Motors at 19580 KMs for routine service. At that time, service was carried out and wheel alignment was carried out. Thereafter, the complainant did not bring the vehicle in question nor the complainant in his complaint, has stated that he has replaced the tyres before 19580 KMs. It is submitted herein that normal life of tyre is 25000-30000 KMs. Thus, the complainant is making bald and vague allegations without any substance or documentary proof.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rohit Kapoor Ex.Op1/1 and documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
6. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.M.K.Bipin Dass Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
7. Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the  spot inspection report dated 27.9.2013 Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3.  
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
9. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased  Indica Vista VX ABS car bearing registration No.PB46N-8425 from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that after the running of the car after first service, complainant noticed that the tyres of the car worn out more than in normal conditions.  The complainant brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 at the time of second service at 5014 KMs. Opposite Party No.1 assured that after the wheel balancing of the wheels, this problem will be resolved. As per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.1, wheel balancing was got done by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant paid charges for the said service of wheel balancing vide invoice dated 23.3.2013 (Ex.C3). But inspite of wheel balancing, the complainant noticed that tyres of the car are again worn out, otherwise in normal conditions. Again this fact was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 and again the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was done by Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant paid the charges for the said service vide invoice dated 6.7.2013 (Ex.C4). Even after the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car, said problem of worn out of tyres did not remove.  The complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party No.3 whose tyres were provided with the said car at the time of purchase. The representative of the Opposite Party No.3 inspected the tyres of the car and gave his  report dated 27.9.2013 (Ex.C6) and dated 27.5.2014 (Ex.C7) in which the engineer of Opposite Party No.3 submitted that there is no defect in the tyres. The tyres do not suffer any manufacturing defect, hence not covered under the warranty. Thereafter, the complainant approached Johal Motors (Tata authorised Service Centre), N-15, Amritsar Road,  Zira and requested for the solution of the tyres worn out. The technicians of Johal Motors again did the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and the complainant paid the charges for the same vide invoice dated 31.12.2013 Ex.C5, but inspite of this, the problem remained same. There  is manufacturing defect in the car  which could not be  rectified by the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant also lodged complaints in this regard on toll free number of Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant was provided  complaint Nos.1-20029310661, 1-20143618998 and 1-20281961411. Then the complainant was called by one Munish, General Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and then complainant showed him the report of Opposite Party No.3 and told the Opposite Party that as there is manufacturing defect in the car and has also not been resolved inspite of wheel balancing of the wheels of the car so many times. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.1 for the change of the car with new one. He assured the complainant that he would sent email to Opposite Party No.2 regarding the problem of the car of the complainant and will feedback the complainant in a  few days, but after that day, the complainant contacted the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 number of times, but no reply has been given by the Opposite Parties. The complainant also produced on record the report from Sh.Prabhjot Singh, Motor Mechanic of Singh Motor Garage, Shop No. 32, Ram Talai Mandir Market, G.T.Road, Amritsar Ex.C10 who inspected the car in which he checked the Odo Meter reading of car  30402 whereas its tyres have worn out to the extent of 70% which is unnatural. These should have been at the reading of 60000 to 70000 KMs. If there would have been any normal defect, same could have been removed through wheel balancing and alignment of the wheels of the car, but despite conducting the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and alignment of the car  so many times, the defect in the car could not be removed. He also inspected the lower chassis of the car. He submitted that there is manufacturing defect in the lower chassis of the car as a result of which the worn out of the tyres of the car is in excessive side. But inspite of all these facts, the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not replace the vehicle of the complainant with new one nor refund the amount of the vehicle in question, despite  the fact that they have failed to remove the defect in the vehicle which is manufacturing/ inherent defect which is not removable.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 is that the whenever the vehicle in question was brought by the complainant to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 for service  or running repair, the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was carried out due to normal wear and tear. The  vehicle of the complainant was  out of warranty, so the  wheel balancing and alignment of the wheels of the car was done at the costs of the complainant. As per records, maintained by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the vehicle was brought on 6.7.2013 at 10336 KMs for carrying out 3^rd service. At that time the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was carried out  by Opposite Party No.1. However, it is submitted that wheel balancing of the wheels of the car needs to be carried out due to bad driving habits, such apply of brakes frequently, drive on bad roads, etc. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion in support of his averments. On 31.12.2013 the vehicle was brought at the workshop of Johal Motors at 19580 KMs for routine service. At that time, service was carried out and wheel alignment was carried out. Thereafter, the complainant did not bring the vehicle in question nor the complainant in his complaint, has stated that he has replaced the tyres before 19580 KMs. It was submitted that normal life of tyre is 25000-30000 KMs. Moreover, abnormal wear and tear of the tyres could be due to bad running of vehicle. Moreover, as per the directions of this Forum, the vehicle in question was checked at Automobile Kapoor’s India Private Limited on 24.6.2014 wherein it was found that the front left hand side bumper was hit and  front splash guard also broken with suspension arm bend due to being hit (accidental damage) which needed to be replaced and the said accidental damage could not be covered under warranty. Said part ‘Suspension Arm’ required immediate replacement, but the vehicle was being driven in such like condition and the driver of the vehicle refused replacement of the part shows casual approach of the driver  with this regard. Opposite Party No.1 submitted this  damaged suspension arm was the reason for bad alignment of the vehicle. Said report is Ex.OP1/2. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 denied that vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 has already closed operation at the address given in the complaint w.e.f. 9.1.2014. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 further submitted that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle to the service centre, the proper service was given and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant after proper service. In this regard, Opposite Party No.1  produced service history of he vehicle Ex.OP1/3. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2  submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased  Indica Vista VX ABS car bearing registration No.PB46N-8425 from Opposite Party No.1 manufactured by Opposite Party No.2. Complainant submitted that tyres of the car worn out more than in normal conditions.  He brought this fact to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 at their service centre at the time of second service at 5014 KMs. Opposite Party No.1 assured that after the wheel balancing of the wheels, this problem would be resolved. Resultantly, the Opposite Party No.1 did the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and the complainant paid charges for the said service of wheel balancing vide invoice dated 23.3.2013 (Ex.C3). But inspite of wheel balancing, the problem remained the same and the tyres of the car again worn out, otherwise than  in normal conditions. Again this fact was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 and again the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car was done by Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant again paid the charges for the said service vide invoice dated 6.7.2013 (Ex.C4). Even after the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car, said problem of excessive/ extra ordinary worn out of tyres did not remove.  The complainant reported the matter to Opposite Party No.3 whose tyres were provided with the said car by the manufacturer. The representative of the Opposite Party No.3 inspected the tyres of the car and gave his  report dated 27.9.2013 (Ex.C6) and dated 27.5.2014 (Ex.C7) in which the engineer of Opposite Party No.3 submitted that there is no defect in the tyres and the tyres do not suffer any manufacturing defect. Not only this, the complainant approached Johal Motors (Tata authorised Service Centre), N-15, Amritsar Road,  Zira for the solution of excessive/ extra ordinary  worn out of the tyres of the car. The technicians of Johal Motors again did the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and the complainant paid the charges for the same vide invoice dated 31.12.2013 Ex.C5, but inspite of this, the problem remained the same, whereby  the authorities of  Johal Motors, Amritsar Road, Zira have also confirmed  that the problem is not related with the tyres, but with the defect in the body of the car itself. The complainant also produced on record the report from Sh.Prabhjot Singh, Motor Mechanic of Singh Motor Garage, Shop No. 32, Ram Talai Mandir Market, G.T.Road, Amritsar Ex.C10, having Diploma in National Trade i.e. Mech. Motor Vehicle Ex.C11)  who inspected the car in which he checked the Odo Meter reading of car  at 30402 KMs whereas its tyres have worn out to the extent of 70% which is unnatural. These should have been at the reading of 60000 to 70000 KMs. This witness further reported that if there would have been any normal defect, the same could have been removed through wheel balancing and alignment of the wheels of the car, but despite conducting the wheel balancing of the wheels of the car and alignment of the car  so many times, the defect in the car could not be removed. This witness also inspected the lower chassis of the car and submitted that  there is manufacturing defect in the lower chassis of the car as a result of which there is  excessive/ extra ordinary worn out of the tyres of the car. This report produced by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the Opposite Parties  could not produce any report of Motor Mechanic or Autumobile Engineer  or any expert to rebut the report of the expert produced by the complainant Ex.C10. All this fully proves that there is inherent/ manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question i.e. in chassis/ body of the car itself which could not be removed  by the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 despite conducting of wheel balancing of the wheels of the car as well as alignment of the wheels of the car so many times. The plea of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 that car  in question does not having chassis, is not tenable because there is chassis  number of the car in question. Apart from this, Sh.Prabhjot Singh, Motor Mechanic who checked the vehicle  in question and submitted his report Ex.C10 has categorically stated that he inspected the lower chassis of the car and found that the same is defective one and that defect can not be removed.
12. The other plea taken by the Opposite Parties  that the car in question was inspected by the Opposite Party No.1  vide job sheet dated 24.6.2014 and it was found that front left hand side bumper hitted, front splash guard also broken and suspension arm bend due to hit and the suspension arm need replacement which is not covered under the warranty, that is why the car is not functioning properly, is also not tenable because firstly the complainant has stated that the car has never met with any  accident, secondly  all this was found in inspection of the car on 24.6.2014 whereas the defect in the car regarding excessive/ extra ordinary worn out of the wheels of the car has been since 23.3.2013 as is evident from the job sheet Ex.C3 and further same defect was found in the car of the complainant vide job sheet dated 6.7.2013 Ex.C4 and same defect was also found in the job sheet dated 31.12.2013 Ex.C5 and in these job sheets, the car in question  remained with the Opposite Parties  for repair and the Opposite Parties did not found any such alleged accident or damage to the car as reported by the Opposite Parties in their job sheet dated 24.6.2014. This defect in the vehicle in question i.e. excessive/ extra ordinary worn out of the wheels of the car could not be removed despite so many attempts made by the Opposite Parties  and the same was found due to defect in the lower chassis i.e. body of the car which is inherent/ manufacturing defect in the car and the same is not repairable. Further such defect is also dangerous  for running such a car on the road as it may cause accident causing loss to the property as well as life of the occupants of the car while driving.
13. Consequently, we allow the complaint with cost and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to replace the car of the complainant with new one within 3 months  from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 25-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member