Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/59

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada Motor pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

               DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                             RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB

                                                                                             CC No.59 of 2022

                                                                                      Date of decision:07.07.2023

Sandeep Kumar aged about 35 years son of Manmohan Lal resident of Village and P.O. Daroli (Upper), Tehsil Nangal, DistrictRupnagar.

...................... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Dada Motors Pvt. Limited, Tata authorized dealer Branch Office Near U.K. Place, G.T. Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana- 141401 through its authorized signatory.
2. Dada Motors Pvt. Limited, Savitri Complex, G.T. Road, DholewalChowk,

Ludhiana - 141003 through its authorized signatory.

3. Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Limited,Passenger Vehicle Business Unit, Godrej  Eternia, Plot No.70, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
4. Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Limited, Floor No.3 and 4, Plot No.18, NanabatiMahalaya, Mudhana Shetty Marg, Bse, Fort, Mumbai -400001 through its authorized  signatory.

....Opposite Parties

Complaint u/s 35 of C.P. Act as amended upto date.

QUORUM:

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER            

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant              :                  Sh. Hemant Choudhry Advocate

For OP No.1 & 2              :                  Miss. Balwinder Kaur, Advocate

For OP No.3  & 4            :                  Sh. Suresh Kumar Chaudhry, Advocate

          ORDER

PER RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant and made averments in his complaint as under:-

1. That the complainant is resident aforesaid address and he has purchased
   new Tata Altroz XT Model, Petrol, Shade-Avenue White from Dada Motors Pvt. Limited (herein referred as  No. 1) which has its head office at Dada Motors Ludhiana i.e. OP No.2 for amounting of Rs. 7,38,4 00/- and same was delivered by OP No. l on 13-10-2021 to the complainant and the said vehicle was also insured by OP No.2 and the complainant has paid Rs.25,690/- for insurance at the time of purchasing the said vehicle and now the registration number of aforesaid vehicle is PB-7 4-C-2091. Copy of invoice is attached herewith. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has paid Rs. 4,05,000/- cash to the Ops and complainant has taken the loan of  Rs. 4,00, 000/- from IndusInd Bank Ltd.
2. Similarly the complainant has a great faith on the Tata Motors and accordingly he has purchased the abovesaid Tata Altroz for his domestic purpose.
3. That within two months of purchase, the said car got rust on left hand side
   fender as well as some portion of the roof of the car got rust and the said
   matter was reported to Dada Motors  through email and reply has been given by them and they suggested to repaint  the rust of left hand side fender area. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant has purchased brand new car Altroz from Tata Motors and within a short time it has got rust on his left hand side fender and also on itsroof. Due to this manufactured defect in the car of the complainant, thecomplainant has lost faith in the Tata Motors due to act and conduct of OPNo. I  and 2. Whereas the Tata Motors i.e. OP No. 3 and 4 has already claimed two years manufacturing and paint quality in the market as well as to the customer from the date of purchasing .
4. That a defective car has been sold and delivered by the OP 1 and 2 in connivance with OP 3 and 4 to the complainant which is clear cut deficiency in service. Now it is the moral duty of the company to  replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new vehicle or to refund theentire sale amount alongwith interest to the complainant.That even the complainant number of times requested the Ops to replace or refund the amount but they refused to admit the claim of the complainant and the complainant has also sent legal notice to the Ops on 08-01-2022 but the Ops have neither make any reply to the said notice nor to take the satisfactory step to sought out the grievous of the complainant. That the complainant is consumer to the OP for consideration. Lastly the complainant payed for the reliefs from OPS as under:-

1. Pay Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant as damages on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
2. To replace the defective car with new one or to refund the entire amount alongwith expenditure on registration, insurance, loan with interest.
3. Pay Rs.15,000/- as cost of complaint.
4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deemed fit proper.

2. Upon notice, OP No.1&2 has appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections as under:-

1. That the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering opposite partiesas no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering opposite parties no.l&2. The answering opposite parties has not committed any wrong nor there is any deficiency in service on their part. That the allegations raised in the complaint are totally false. The vehicle in question sold by the opposite parties to the complainant was absolutely in good condition having no defect of any kind. That the complainant after making himself satisfied  and signed the satisfaction note. The copy of the satisfaction note is attached.
2. That the  alleged defect, of the paint is accrued due to some external impact which resulting in to peeling of the paint and the rust caught by the part of the car. It is important to mention here that the vehicle was in the custody of the complainant and it is the complainant  can tell how the paint is peeled off and caught the rust the answering party could not held liable for the wrongs and mistakes of complainant. That the alleged rust is very minor (pin drop size) but the answering party as a goodwill gesture offered the complainant to get the part under rust repainted but complainant refused and filed this false complaint. The vehicle of the complainant has run up to 6382 KM on 08.04.2022 last time he brought it for service. The job card dated 08.04.2022 of the vehicle is attached. The complainant was fully satisfied and has given the full marks (10)of satisfaction in Instantfeedback. The copy of the feedback form and satisfaction note dated 8.04.2022 is attached. That it is important to note here that the alleged defect of paint accrued due to negligence of the complainant which does not come under warranty or the definition of manufacturing defect moreover the paint of the car does not come under warranty. Hence the complaint of  the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
3. That on merits OP No. 1 & 2 averred that complaint is  wrong and denied.  It is wrong that within two months of purchase the left hand side fender of the car got rusted or its roof. The warranty of the car is of  2 years or 75.000 KM and the  Paint does not come under warranty of the manufacturer.That there is no defect in the vehicle and the company is not liable to replace it or refund the sale price of the car.
4. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering party.The answering parties are not liable to pay rupees 15,000,00/- to complainant or replace the car as alleged in this Para. The complainant has not suffered in any manner as alleged.

3. Upon notice, OP No.3& 4 has appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections as under:-

1. That the present complaint is without any cause of action and is notat all maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission. That within two months from thepurchase of vehicle, he noticed rust on Left hand side of Fender andon some portion of roof in the vehicle. However, on inspection by theService Engineer ( Expert Opinion) of OP no. 1 and OP no. 2, they observed as under:

                             “After physically verification found paint chip off due to some external impact and resulting in rusting”.

2. Since, the issue of rusting had arisen due to external impact and though, it is not covered under warranty terms and conditions of  vehicle, yet as a goodwill gesture and Company’s policy to satisfy its customers, OP no.l and 2 had sent an email dated 04.01.2022, whereby requesting the Complainant to bring the vehicle to their workshop for resolving the issue of rusting on LH Fendor on FOC basis. The copy of the said email dated 04.01.2022 are annexed herewith as Annexure 1 to this reply.
3. It is further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty which are binding upon the Complainant as well as the Answering OP and further the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra  (2006) 4 SCC 644was/is willing to redress the grievance of the Complainant. However, the Complainant for the reasons best known to himself and being ill advised filed the present complaint. Thus, the Complainant has not availed the opportunity to redress his grievance and filed the present complaint and the same is not maintainable as per law and in breach of terms and conditions of warranty.
4. That the clause 2 of terms and conditions of warranty is reproduced herein below for the perusal of this Hon'ble Commission:

                                       “Clause 2: Our obligation under this warranty shall be limited to                                    repairing or replacing, free of charge, such parts of the car which,                                     in our opinion, are defective, on the car being brought to us or to                                      our dealers within the period. The parts so repaired or replaced                                         shall   also be warranted for quality and workmanship but such                                         warranty shall be co-terminus   with this original warranty. ”

5. That the problem of rusting issue on limited parts and that too due to external factors in the vehicle is only a minor issue and the same cannot be termed as “manufacturing defect” as alleged by the Complainant.That the Complainant has not filed any documentary proof in support of his contention to show that the vehicle really had any manufacturing defect due to Rusting. No expert evidence from an independent Government agency has been adduced by the Complainant to establish any manufacturing defect. Hence, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of statutory provisions of Consumer Protection Act as well as law laid down in the matter of Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr.BirendraNarain Prasad &Ors decided on 07.05.2010 and Classic Automobiles Vs. LeelaNand Mishra &Anr reported in I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).
6. That the relationship between the Opposite Parties and its Dealers is on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that, the Answering OP cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of the Complainant. Reference may be taken from the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala &Anr. (1994) 1, Supreme Court Cases 397, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “reliance has to be placed on the circumstances, documents and conduct of parties to prove that the relationship of the parties is of ‘principal and agent’ or of one of principal to principal’ basis. In the instant case, it was held that the relationship of the parties is on ‘principal to principal’ basis.
7. That the present complaint is also not maintainable because the vehicle was admittedly purchased on instalments and thus, the Complainant is not the de-jure owner of the vehicle in question because the Complainant is merely the Hirer/ Bailee. Hence, he does not come under the definition of the Consumer as provided under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
8. The Answering respondents at the outset deny all the allegations and

averments made in the complaint against them, save and except which are specifically admitted hereinafter, in the reply.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1. That It is worthwhile to mention herein that the relationship between the Answering OP and OP no. 1 and 2 are purely on Principal to Principal basis.It is submitted that the Complainant had brought to the knowledge of OP no. 1 and 2 regarding rust on the left side fendor of the car which had been examined by the service engineer who arecompetent and qualified to assess the root cause of appearance of rust and after thorough checking have observed as under which is also reproduced herein below for the convenience of this Hon’ble Commission:

                             “After physically verification found paint chip off due to some                              external impact and resulting in rusting”.

10. Since, the issue of rusting had arisen due to external impact and though, it is not covered under warranty terms and conditions of vehicle, yet as a goodwill gesture and Company’s policy to satisfy its customers, OP no. 1 and 2 had sent an email dated 04.01.2022, whereby requesting the Complainant to bring the vehicle to their workshop for resolving the issue of rusting on LH Fendor on FOC basis. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further submitted that Answering OP sells its vehicle with warranty which are pen down in Owners Service book and the said terms and conditions are binding upon the Complainant as well as upon Answering OP.
11. That further answering OP was/is ready and willing to extend their support through OP no. 1 and 2 to redress the grievance of the Complainant and Complainant has not availed the opportunity to get his grievance redressed, as such the present complaint is not maintainable.
12. That It is specifically denied that Complainant is entitled for replacement/ refund of the price of the vehicle in question. The unjustified and illegal demand raised by Complainant was devoid of any merits and not legally tenable, therefore cannot be fulfilled, as the same is against the terms and conditions of warranty. It is specifically denied that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by Answering OP.
13. That it is submitted that in view of the contents of preliminary objection no. 1, the Complainant does not enjoy the status of “Consumer”.
14. That the contents of prayer clause are misconceived, wrong, false, incorrect, baseless, vexatious and without any foundation or truth in it and hence denied. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for against the Answering respondents.It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint of the Complainant may be dismissed qua the Answering respondents – Tata Motors Ltd. in the facts and circumstances of the case.Pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

4.     The parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions and after going through the pleadings and the material placed before it, The important issue which has arisen before us for our consideration is as under:-

1. Whether the vehicle really suffers from any manufacturing defect?.
2. Whether the relief sought by the complainant be allowed or not?.
3. Whether any direction are required to be issued to the necessary party if the issue no. 1 is not decided in favour of complainant?.

5.     We have gone through the report of the Automobile Engineer placed on record by OP whose contents are as under:-

                             “That as per order of this hon,ble forum Dated 16.01.2023 the vehicle                              was inspected by Mr. Manoj Kumar, Automobile Engineer of Dada                                  Motors Pvt Ltd. On 18.01.2023.

1. The vehicle was thoroughly checked by me in the presence of                                  Mr. Sandeep sharma on 18.01.2023 in the workshop of Dada                                 Motors Pvt Ltd situated at Savitri complex-1 DholewalChowk,                              Ludhiana and Mr. Sanjay Mehta, Service Engineer Tata Motors                              Ltd.
2. That I have checked the vehicle thoroughly and found that there                              was no visible rust mark on the vehicle and the paint of the                                     vehicle was in OK condition except two places .i.e. Small points                              of rust which was visible inside the joint of bumper and fender,                              roof and the same are very minor, cureable and can be rectified                              by repairing. The   Photo graphs of the said parts are also                                          annexed herewith.
3. Those according to my observation that rust is accrued due to                                 some external impact curable and the other parts of the vehicle                              were in good condition. The meter reading of the vehicle was                                 showing that the vehicle had already covered approx. 17000KM.

                                      Hence this is my observation on the above said vehicle.

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                   Manoj Kumar

                                                                                                Automobile Engineer”             

6. We have noted that while OP in order to prove their contention in the pleadings placed reliance on  law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra  (2006) 4 SCC 644. In  this order theHon’ble Supreme Court has held that where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction for replacement of the car would not be justified. Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion,We are bound by the law laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court and other authorities cited by the counsel for the Ops. Car in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The car can neither be replaced nor its amount can be refunded. Hence issue No. 1 and  issue No. 2 are decided against the complainant.
8.     We also noted that as for as issue no 3 is concerned Ops admitted the rusting of vehicle on his left hand side fender and also on its roof. As per report of the Automobile Engineer “the paint of the vehicle was in OK condition except two places .i.e. Small points of rust which was visible inside the joint of bumper and fender, roof and the same are very minor, cure able and can be rectified by repairing.
9.     As per submissions in the subsequent para above, keeping in view of the fact and circumstances, We hereby ordered as under:-

1. The car can neither be replaced nor its amount can be refunded.
2. The said vehicle shall be repaired by OP No. 1 and the General Manager of OP No. 1 will issue a certificate to the effect that repair of the affected points has been done as per specification.
3. That once the complainant handed over the car to OP No.1 for repair, the OP No. 1 will repair the car within 30 days and will hand over the vehicle to the complainant.
4. Thereafter, the warranty period shall stand extended by 12 months. This will be one of the condition on the warranty card issued to the complainant.
5.  To Pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expense to the complainant.
6.   That complaint is disposed of accordingly. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 Dated :- 07-07-2023      

  

                                     ( RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA)                   (RANVIR KAUR)

                        MEMBER                                     MEMBER