BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 114/2013
1. | M/s Tata Motors Ltd., Marketing and Customer Support, Passenger Car Business Unit, One Forbes 5th Floor, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai-400023, Represented by its authorized Signatory Mr.Ramhari Barbole. | …Appellant/s |
2. | M/s Tata Motors Passenger Car. Business Unit one Forbes, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai-400023, Represented by its authorized Signatory Mr.RamHari Barbole. | |
V/s
1. | Mr.Basavaraj, S/o Sri Sivarao Ingin, Aged about 72 years, R/a:H.No.1-9/28/D, “Shiva Shanthi”Khuba Plot, Gulbarga-585103. | …Respondent/s |
2. | M/s V.K.G Motors, Kapnoor (industrial Area) Humnabad Road, Gulbarga-5851104 Rep its Manager. | |
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal against the order dt.12.09.2012 passed in CC.No.35/2012 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Gulbarga, which directed this appellant to pay an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9%, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and also Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses and submits that the complainant purchased Tata Indica car from their dealer on 07.08.2011 and he paid an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- towards purchase of the vehicle. The complainant had purchased the vehicle with an assurance of mileage up to 25km per liter. After purchase the complainant noticed that the said vehicle is giving only 12 to 15 km per liter. Immediately, approached the service station of this appellant and gave a complaint at the time of service the vehicle was plied up to 16 km. OP-3 after service had assured the mileage is going to increase and also told that the vehicle fetches to 25kms of mileage. If it was in driven in high way without using A.C for which the complainant shocked and enquired the usage of the vehicle only in the National Highway without A.C. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective vehicle and sought for replacement of the vehicle or to refund the amount paid towards the purchaser of the vehicle.
2. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this OP to pay the above said amount, in fact this appellant being a manufacturer is not liable to pay any compensation or refund of the amount of Rs.5,80,000/- at interest of 9% towards purchaser of the vehicle as because the mileage of the vehicle depends upon the various factors such as driving skills, quality of petrol, road condition, condition of the tyres, load of the vehicle and usage of the AC which includes the conditions of the vehicles/maintenance of the vehicle. The complainant filed a false complaint alleging manufacturing defect though there is no any manufacturing defect. The District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount which lacks legality and hence, prays for set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.
Heard from both Appellant and Respondent.
3. On perusal of the certified copies of the order, memorandum of appeal and the other documents produced before District Commission there is no dispute that complainant had purchased Tata Indica Car from OP-1 and 2 which was manufactured by this Appellant. The complainant after purchase had approached the service station of this appellant with a complaint of low mileage. After service, the vehicle was returned back to the complainant but complainant not satisfied with the service, alleged manufacturing defect and filed a complaint alleging it was not giving assured mileage up to 25 per km but it is giving only 12 to 15 km per liter and hence, prayed for replacement of the vehicle.
4. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant refund the amount paid toward the purchaser of the vehicle.
5. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Mere, drop of the mileage in the purchased vehicle not considered or defective vehicle. The mileage of the vehicle always depends upon the pattern of driving and as submitted by the learned advocate for appellant depends upon the quality of petrol, road condition, condition of the tyres and usage of the A.C even it depends upon the load on the vehicle. Therefore, mere giving 12 to 15 km per liter is not amounts to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The District Commission made an error in allowing the complaint. Further we are of the opinion that any vehicle which is released for sale usually underwent Standard Tests and after the satisfaction approval by the proper Authority the vehicle was sold by the dealers. The complainant has not provided any materials to show any manufacturing defects, in absence of these we cannot hold that the vehicle have manufacturing defect. As such the complainant is not entitled for any refund amount as order by the District Commission. Therefore, it requires to be set aside. Accordingly we proceed the following:
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside and subsequently, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the Appellant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
P*
