BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.302 of 2022
Date of Instt. 24.08.2022
Date of Decision: 08.01.2024
S. R. Graphics, Shop Number 1, Hind Samachar Street, Jalandhar through its Proprietor Rajeev Dogra.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Cargo Motors Private Limited, G. T. Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar through its Manager.
2. TATA Motors Limited, One India Bulls Centre, Tower 2A and B, 20th Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Jupiter Mills Compound, Eliphinstone Road (West) Mumbai-400013 through its MD.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. A. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. Navjot Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. V. K. Attri, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased a Tata Intra V10 from the OP No.1 on 23-03-2022 vide invoice number ICRMJA2122001340 dated 23-03-2022, having Chassis Number MAT535305 NYC10583 and Engine Number 800CCD102CXXS29736 for a sum of Rs.7,09,448/- with 2 years warranty or 72.000 Kms. The complainant has paid Rs.2,59,448/- as down payment and the complainant get finance the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from IDFC Bank. The vehicle in question has registration number as PB08 EX 1083. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. At the time of taking delivery of the abovementioned vehicle, the complainant had noticed that a panel on the driver side of the vehicle was having new paint to cover some damage and the complainant has brought this fact in the knowledge of sale representative of the opposite party number 1, namely Kamaljit Singh. The said sales representative admitted that the panel has been again painted, but he assured that he will get the repaint of the panel and even given a discount of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant has accepted his offer, as the said default was not related to any manufacturing defect. On the next day, the Air Conditioner of the above said Vehicle started tripping, which made the eco mode grew to be unreliable due to turning on and off it randomly without any incitation. The complainant was on his way to Chandigarh on the said vehicle and he immediately brought this fact in to the knowledge of the OP No.1 and the complainant was told that he should speak to the technical team. After few days the reverse parking sensors stopped working and even due to overheating the complainant stopped to operate vehicle with Air Conditioner. On 01-05-2022, the vehicle in question has stopped functioning in the middle of the road and it took 10-15 minutes to restart and the gas started leak from the vent. The complainant took the vehicle to his place with very difficulty. On 02-05-2022 the complainant made a call to sale representative of the OP No.1 and apprised him about the faults of the vehicle and asked him, if the vehicle could be inspected and repaired in or around Mohali as it is impossible to drive it all the way to Jalandhar. On 03-05-2022, Mr. Kamaljit Singh told the complainant that to call one Mr. Satpal of CMPL Motors (authorized dealer of opposite party number 2), Phase-1 Chandigarh at his number 9041034510. The complainant took the vehicle on the above stated address by towing it, as the distance between the place of the complainant and CMPL Motors is 15 Kms and the vehicle gets overheated after drive of 3-4 Kms. After reaching there the complainant explained the faults to the said Satpal. The said Satpal told the complainant that he should leave the vehicle with them so that they can figure out the problems and fix them. On the same day, the complainant received a call from Mr. Satpal, by which he informed the complainant that the vehicle in question has all the problems whatever the complainant told him and he further informed the complainant that the vehicle in question is not having original wiring and all the problems occurred because duplicate wiring in the vehicle have been fitted. The reason for leakage of gas is due to loosed threading of compressor. The complainant was shocked to hear this. On 22-05-2022, the complainant has made a call at customer care centre of the OP No.2 on its toll free number 18002097979. The service centre has generated a service request number IC 177294289016. But nothing has been done by the OP No.1. The complainant had again lodged a complaint with service centre on 26-05-2022 and conveyed the customer care executive about the condition of the vehicle. The customer care executive connected the call of the complainant to one of their senior and the complainant has to apprise the said senior about his grievance and the complainant was contacted further with one Mr. Gurpreet. The complainant had to repeat everything third time on the same call to Mr. Gurpreet. Mr. Gurpreet had assured the complainant for effective and prompt solution. But since then, no action has been taken by the OPs for the redressal of the grievance of the complainant. The OPs had caused mental tension and agony and discomfort and harassment to the Complainant. The act of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the vehicle or to return the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.7,22,748/- to the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. The vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and is being used for commercial use. It is further averred that the vehicle in question has never been presented with the answering OP No.1 for inspection or repair as service, so no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant against the answering OP No.1. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 and it is also admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.2,59,448/- as down payment and got financed the remaining amount, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complainant is engaged in the commercial business and the vehicle in question was also purchased out the funds of commercial entity i.e. ‘S.R. Graphics’ and also in its name meaning thereby, the Complainant cannot maintain the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 amended up to date as it does not enjoy the status of "Consumer" under Section 2(7) of the Act. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the answering OP carried out its contractual obligations as envisaged in warranty terms and conditions of vehicle which are binding upon the complainant as well as answering OP. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in as much as the vehicle in question is a piece of machinery consists of thousands of parts and due to usage and natural wear and tear and on road operations, minor issues may arise due to various on road conditions. The complainant has not filed any application or documentary proof in support of his contention to show that the vehicle really had any manufacturing defect. No expert evidence from an independent Government agency in view of the provisions of Section 38 (2) (c) of Consumer Protection Act has been adduced by the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from OP No.1 is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.2,59,448/- as down payment and got financed the remaining amount, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the OP No.2 very minutely.
7. The OP has alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. He is engaged in the commercial business and the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes out of the funds of the commercial entities i.e. S. R. Graphics. As per Section 2 (7) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which as under:-
“hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.”
But the contention raised by the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer, is not tenable as the complainant in his complaint has categorically stated that he has purchased the vehicle in question for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. As per Section 2 (7) (ii), if the person purchases anything without the motive of earning profit rather for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, then he is held to be consumer. Thus, the complainant is consumer and the complaint is maintainable.
8. The complainant has purchased a Tata Intra V10 from OP No.1 vide Ex.C-1 for Rs.7,22,748/-. Ex.C-2 shows that the RC is also in the name of the complainant and complainant is owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was got insured from the insurance company vide Ex.C-3. The complainant has alleged that at the time of taking delivery, he noticed a panel on the driver side of the vehicle was having new paint to cover some damage and this fact was brought to the notice of the employee of the OP. The sale representative assured that he will get the repaint of the panel. Discount of Rs.7000/- was given to the complainant. This fact has been admitted by the OP No.2 in para No.4 of the written statement on merits that the complainant brought to their notice that some paint drops were visible, but they assured him that no repaint has been done. The discount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant has been admitted. This admission itself makes it clear that there was some problem on the panel regarding paint that is why discount of Rs.7000/- was given by the OP No.2. As per submission of the complainant, on the very next day, the AC of the vehicle started tripping and this fact was brought to the notice of the OPs, then there became a problem of reverse parking sensor, then on 01.05.2022, the gas started leaking from the vent and the vehicle stopped at Mohali. The sale representative was called on 02.05.2022 apprising him about the fault of the vehicle on 03.05.2022. Kamaljeet Singh, the employee (representative of OP) told the complainant to contact Mr. Satpal. He called Mr. Satpal of CMPL Motors and he took the vehicle there by towing it. He informed the complainant that the vehicle is not having original wiring and the reason for leakage of gas is due to loose threading of compressor. He proved the document Ex.C-4. This fact has been mentioned on the tax invoice that wiring temporary fitted not from company and AC compressor pipe is loose and AC gas get leaked. This invoice is dated 21.05.2022, whereas the vehicle was purchased on 23.03.2022, meaning thereby that two months prior to the problem, which occurred on the way and this was the remarks of the Expert. It cannot be imagined that the complainant would get the wiring changed within two months from the date of purchase of new car. Ex.C-5, Ex.C-7 the photographs clearly show the status and condition of the wiring of the vehicle. The complainant’s further complaint is that there was some old number fixed, which is apparent and evident from Ex.C-5. This shows that another number plate below the new number plate was there and this number plate also seems to be of old model and this shows that old vehicle has been sold by the OPs to the complainant. This fact has not been rebutted by the OPs to show that the vehicle was not old rather it was a new vehicle. It has been admitted by the OPs that the defect of paint was brought to their notice at the time of purchase by the complainant and it has also been admitted that for this, discount of Rs.7000/- was given to the complainant. No expert has been examined by the OP to prove that the car was not an old one rather it was a new one. It is proved by the complainant that the expert of their authorized agency has given the opinion that the vehicle in question is not having original wiring and all the problems occurred because duplicate wiring have been fitted in the vehicle and the reason for leakage of gas is due to loose threading of compressor. This clearly proves that this is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs to handover the old and defective car, which is not in a perfect condition to the complainant for the value of the new vehicle. It is proved from the documents and the photographs that when the car was handed over to the complainant, it was not new one rather the same was old one and it was having manufacturing defects, either it may be of electrical or anything else. Apart from this, it was having the old number plate and irregular paint. Once any consumer purchases a new car by spending huge amount of Rs.7,09,448/-, he expects the same to be upto their expectation for smooth drive. The complainant was not able to enjoy the drive of the car. Within two months, the complainant had to suffer problems due to the car. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to return the cost of the car alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
08.01.2024 Member Member President
