Complaint filed on: 01-06-2010 <br /> Disposed on: 08-09-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.1240/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 8th SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> Sri.Rajan.K.,<br /> No.41, Bhanu Nivas,<br /> Kalathur Layout, <br /> Gangamma Circle, <br /> Bangalore -13 <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> <br /> Deputy General Manager, <br /> (Customer Care & DQCTC <br /> Campaign), Passenger Car <br /> Business unit), <br /> TATA Motors Ltd, <br /> 5th Floor, 1 Forbes,<br /> 1 Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg,<br /> Mumbai-01<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The Grievance of the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP for short) in brief is that, he had purchased a passenger car on 20-3-2007 from the 2nd OP. That on very second day of delivery the car started giving trouble and on intimation to the 2nd OP, he took the car to his workshop and found that the ignitor code wire set damaged and two tyres were also damaged. The OP got one of the tyres replaced. On completion of 19000 km running the left side shaft was replaced due to manufacturing defect. In the second week of February 2009 the car was given to the 2nd OP for servicing and he was told that ECU, Radiator fan and wiring unit failed and demanded Rs.1200/- from him for replacement. Though the defects were brought to the 2nd OP earlier within the warranty period, the mechanics without undertaking the repair allowed to elapse the warranty period. He had no sufficient funds for repair but gathered Rs.7000/- as hand loan and got certain repairs done, without replacing EC, the car is idle. That the 2nd OP did not cooperate with him for repair, when he told an official of 2nd OP about the problem in the car, he told him to throw the car to gujri. The complainant giving the name of that official who had said so has further stated that the Ops without replacing ECU have caused deficiency in their service. Then he got issued a legal notice to them. The 1st OP has given reply to that notice. Therefore the complainant has prayed for a direction to the Ops to repair or replace the ECU of his vehicle and order to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs. <br /> <br /> 2. The complainant by filing a memo got OP no.2 deleted. The 1st OP through his advocate has filed version, of course the version is not singed by the advocate. The 1st OP in the version admitting the complainant purchasing a car manufactured by it has denied the allegation of the complainant regarding any manufacturing defect in the car. This OP has by narrating the reputation of the company, quality of the vehicle manufactured and quality test that are adopted has stated that the vehicle was taken for three free service before it reaching 19000 kms and under all these occasion it was in excellent condition and was serviced. That as on 23-1-2008 the vehicle was taken for fourth free service at 20734 kms during that test drive noise was observed in the left shaft and same was replaced under warranty as it was under warranty period. The vehicle which had run 29728 kms was taken to them on 7-6-2008, for 30000 kms service was taken on 5-9-2008. When the vehicle had run 34815 kms it was taken with a grievance of engine over heating. It was noticed that the temperature sensor was faulty and there was no over heating. Temperature sensor was changed and the vehicle was returned to the complainant in excellent condition and the vehicle after running 43527 kms on 20-2-2009 was taken for engine over heating which was thoroughly checked and the problem was diagnosed as short circuiting of wires leading to damage of ECU, which was informed to the complainant. As the vehicle given for check up during February 2009, it was outside the warranty the EUC could not be replaced free of cost and therefore the complainant was told that they will replace the ECU on chargeable basis. But the complainant did not agree for it and stated as the warranty period had expired, they did not replace the ECU. Further contended that the complainant until the vehicle run for 43630 kms at no time made any complaint about the functioning of ECU and denying any deficiency in their service have submitted for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the 1st OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith with the complaint has produced a copy of certain correspondences that took place between himself and Ops. The 1st OP has not produced any documents. Advocate for the complainant has filed his written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the 1st OP and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the ECU <br /> fitted to the car, he purchased from the 2nd OP manufactured by the 1st OP was having manufacturing defect and that the 1st OP has caused deficiency in his service in not replacing it?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> Point no.1: In the negative <br /> Point no.2: See the final Order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: We find no dispute between the parties in this complainant having had purchased a motor car from the 2nd OP a dealer, manufactured by the 1st OP. But the allegations of the complainant that the ECU fitted to that car was a defective one despite all his efforts and issue taken up with the 1st OP has not been resolved by replacing it has been denied by the 1st OP by contending that the complainant never brought to their notice of any defect in the ECU until expiry of warranty period. Though he had got all free service done to his car and run the vehicle for more than 40000 kms and contended that they had offered to replace service the ECU on chargeable basis but the complainant refused to pay charges and therefore stated that they are not at all fault and submitted for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. The complainant who has alleged that there was defect in the ECU but has not comes with specific stand that there was manufacturing defect in that ECU but alleged as if that defect was there. Even during warranty period, therefore the burden is on the complainant to prove that there had been manufacturing defect in the ECU, it was there during warranty period and that problem was brought to the notice of the 1st OP within the warranty period. The complainant except reproducing what he has stated in the complaint in the form of affidavit evidence, he has not at all met the contention of the OP taken in the version denying the allegations of the complaint. The Op in the version has given categorical details of servicing the complainant’s car on four occasions rendering four free services and stated till the car run 43527 kms, the complainant had not brought to their notice about any problem in the ECU. He has also further stated when the vehicle was taken for service on 20-2-2009, they noticed short circuiting of wire leading to damage of ECU and that was intimated to the complainant and further stated by that time warranty period had expired. The complainant has not attempted to deny this fact by swearing in the affidavit evidence. The OP in his affidavit evidence has also reiterated the said fact. Thus it is found, that the stand of the 1st OP that the complainant did not brought to the notice any problem in the ECU of his car until expiry of warranty period, until four free services were done and until the car run 43527 kms remained un-controverted and unquestioned. The complainant has also not produced any evidence or documents to prove that he had noticed defect in the ECU during four free service done and until expiry of warranty period and brought it to the notice of the 1st OP or any one. In the absence of any such evidence placed before this forum and the defence of the 1st OP since having not been controverted, we find no hesitation to hold that the complainant had no problem with the ECU fitted to his car until the expiry of warranty. Further damage of ECU as stated by OP was due to short circuiting of wires has also not been controverted. When these hard facts are not denied by the complainant, the complainant in our view was and is not entitled for free replacement of ECU. <br /> <br /> 8. The 1st OP in his pleading has stated that after noticing the damage of the ECU stated had told the complainant that they will replacing the ECU on the complainant paying the required changes. But the complainant did not agree. Even this statement of the OP has not been controverted. In the course of arguments also the counsel for the OP offered to replace the ECU on the complainant paying the charges. For which, the complainant who was in person refused to avail such service and stated that he was already got ECU replaced from somebody and do not want to replace through OP. The complainant under these circumstances, in our view has failed to prove the defect in the ECU was either manufacturing one or it was there during warranty period. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for free replacement or compensation for it. In the correspondences that went on between the complainant and the 1st OP, first OP had even offered to replace the ECU on discount of Rs.5,000/-, but even then, the complainant did not agree for such offer. Thus having found the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the 1st OP he is not entitled for relief and the complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed. With the result we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 8th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member Member President<br />