KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 909/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 345/2009 of CDRF, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Tata Motors Ltd., 4^th Floor, Liv N Tower, Opp: Gold Souk, Vyttila, Kochi-682 019 formerly at Tuttoos Towers, 3^rd Floor, NH Byepass, Padivattom, Kochi.

2. Focuz Motors, Thookkukulam Junction, Sanadanapuram P.O., Alappuzha.                                      

                             (By Advs. V. Krishna Menon & S. Reghukumar)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Hariprasad, S/o Bhargavan, Chirayil Veedu, Muhamma P.O., Alappuzha.

(By Adv. T. Saji)

2. St. Antony’s Motors, Vadavathoor P.O., 111/172, K.K. Road, Kottayam.                  

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellants are the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha (District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 345/2009.  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party.

2.   The case of the complainant is as follows:- 

The complainant purchased a Tata Indica Vista car from the first opposite party and within a few days of purchase, manufacturing defect developed in the car and because of that he sustained mental agony and huge financial loss.   Complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for doing service and on the very same day of servicing the A.C of the car failed to function and the vehicle stalled on the road and at the request of the first opposite party complainant handed over the vehicle to the third opposite party.   The manufacturing defect of the vehicle was not rectified by the second and third opposite parties and complainant informed the matter to the first opposite party.  First opposite party has also failed to rectify the defects.  Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint.   

             3.  The first opposite party filed version contending as follows:- 

The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protect Act.  Complainant had alleged bald and vague allegations of manufacturing defects in the car in question. The vehicle of the complainant does not suffer from any defects.  Complainant had taken his vehicle to the work shop of the third opposite party only on 3 occasions ie. on 20.2.2009 for having the floor mat cleaning, on 25.2.2009 for a complaint that AC water was entering inside the cabin and on 18.4.2009 for attending to the 5000 km. servicing and a complaint of dash board rattling.  There is no merit or basis in the allegations of the complainant that the alleged complaints in the vehicle were not attended by the second opposite party and which were brought to the notice of the third opposite party had not been rectified.  The complainant had on 15.5.2009 approached the second opposite party alleging that there were complaints to his vehicle.  He had however instructed the second opposite party not to start the repair works unless and until he gave his approval.  Since the complainant did not give his approval for about 5 days the second opposite party had addressed a letter to the complainant on 20.5.2009 seeking his approval for the work.  This opposite party had also sent a letter dated 2.6.2009 requesting the complainant to give his approval to the second opposite party for carrying out the repairs.  The second opposite party had sent another reminder letter dated 11.6.2009.It is only after receipt of the letter of the second opposite party dated 11.6.2009 that the complainant gave his approval for carrying out the repairs in his vehicle.  After the repairs the second opposite party had sent a letter dated 16.6.2009 informing the complainant that the repairs to the vehicle were completed and asking him to take delivery of the vehicle.  This opposite party had also informed the complainant as per letter dated 16.6.2009 that the repair to his vehicle had been completed and requesting him to take delivery of the vehicle.  Since the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle, the second opposite party had sent a reminder letter dated 24.7.2009.However, the complainant has for reasons best known to him not bothered to take his vehicle from the workshop of the second opposite party till date.  This opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible for the same.  The opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant and he is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation.

4.   The second opposite party filed version contending as follows:-

The car sold to the complainant was not having any manufacturing defect and it never developed any problem due to a manufacturing defect.  Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party with the car the opposite party had given timely attention and services.  The complainant brought the car to the opposite party complaining of some defects which can be caused to any motor car and the opposite party promptly repaired the defect and informed the complainant to take the car. Despite several requests by the second opposite party the complainant failed to take the vehicle.  At last the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant to take the car.  On receipt of that letter the complainant came to the opposite party’s show room but instead of taking the vehicle, he spoke to the service manager of the opposite party in a bad tone and demanded that the second opposite party should give a new car to the complainant or else they should return the value of the car.  The car sold to the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect and the opposite party has repaired the minor repairs of the car and now the car is lying in the second opposite party’s show room in perfect running condition.  It is the complainant who is not taking back the repaired car making unreasonable demands and the sole intention of the complainant is to make illegal and unjust enrichment and to harass the second opposite party.

5. The third opposite party filed version contending as follows:-

The 3^rd opposite party denied the allegation that within a few days of purchase of the Tata Indica Car by the complainant various manufacturing defects were noticed in the vehicle and thereby he had suffered monetary loss.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party only on three occasions – viz. 20.2.2009 for having the floor mats cleaned, on 25.2.2009 for a complaint that A/C water was entering inside the cabin and on 18.4.2009 for attending to the 5000 km. service and a complaint of dash board rattling.  On all the three occasions, the 3^rd opposite party had attended to the complaints, which were minor in nature to the satisfaction of the complainant and he had taken delivery of the vehicle on each occasion expressing satisfaction over the work done.  After 18.4.2009 the complainant had at no point of time brought his vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party.  This opposite party being a authorized service centre of the first opposite party cannot be made liable in the facts and circumstances of the case.  The complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint.

6. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked.  The expert commissioner was examined as CW1 and the commission report was marked is Ext.C1.The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed proof affidavits and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6.  After close of evidence the District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to refund Rs. 3,78,736/-, the purchase value of the vehicle with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization and to pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the proceedings.  Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed this appeal. 

7.  The appellants argued that the District Forum ordered the complaint only on the basis of the commission report.  A perusal of the report of the expert commissioner would disclose that the findings made therein are only based on a naked eye view of the vehicle and not based on any tests.  They further stated that it is settled principle of law that the report of an expert commissioner should contain cogent reasons and materials to support his findings.  The appellants informed the matter regarding the completion of the work of the vehicle to the complainant, but he did not take the vehicle.  It is an undisputed fact.  The finding of the District Forum was wrong in finding that the vehicle in dispute was having manufacturing defect.  There were only rectifiable defects. The order of the District Forum to replace the vehicle is against settled legal principles and hence liable to be set aside. 

8.  The findings of the District Forum were that the complainant is a consumer.  He purchased the vehicle for his own use and not for commercial purpose.  Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to prove their contention that the complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. 

9.  As per Ext. A13 the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 07.01.2009. Within a few days of its purchase the vehicle was having some defects and that caused one trouble after another.  On the very same day itself the A.C of the car became defective and the vehicle while it was running suddenly stopped.  As per the direction of the 1^st opposite party the complainant had brought the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party and they repaired the same.  The complainant had brought the vehicle for repair on 20.02.2009, 25.02.2009 and 18.04.2009 i.e; within 5000 kms of running.  Lastly on 15.05.2009 the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party and demanded for replacement of the vehicle.  According to the complainant the opposite parties repaired the vehicle several times but the defects were not rectified because of the inherent manufacturing defects.  According to the opposite parties they intimated the complainant several times that the vehicle was repaired and to take it from their workshop. 

10.  The District Forum appointed a commissioner to inspect the condition of the vehicle.  The report was marked as Ext. C1 which shows that the vehicle still has some defects.  For the above mentioned reason the District Forum found that it was the duty of the opposite parties to return the defect free vehicle to the complainant or refund its purchase price.  They did not do so.  Hence the District Forum directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,78,736/-, the purchase value of the vehicle with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization.  The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

11.  The findings of the District Forum are very reasonable.  But the order passed against the 3^rd opposite party/2^nd appellant is not justified.  3^rd opposite party is only the authorized service centre of 1^st opposite party/1^st appellant.  2^nd opposite party is the dealer.  The District Forum found that the complaints of the vehicle occurred due to manufacturing defects.  So the service centre has no liability.  The manufacturer and the dealer are responsible for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant.  The dealer has some after sales responsibility towards the customers.  It is the duty of the dealer to settle the disputes of their customers with the manufacturer.  Only the dealer has direct accessibility to the manufacturer.  Here, the dealer/2^nd opposite party had not taken any steps for an amicable settlement between the customer and the manufacturer.  There is no need for further discussion.  The contention raised by the 1^st appellant is not sustainable.  The complainant has successfully proved his case before the District Forum.  The finding of the District Forum is correct, but some modification is required.  So we modify the order to the effect that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 3,78,736/- to the complainant. 

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.  The 2^nd appellant is exonerated from the liability.  The 1^st appellant and 2^nd respondent have to pay the above mentioned amount to the 1^st respondent/complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The amount shall carry 9% annual interest from the date of complaint i.e; 24.10.2009 till the date of realization.  Costs is not ordered. 

         JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER  

jb