| Complaint Case No. CC/10/86 |
| | | | 1. Kalimisetty Suresh | | Kalimisetty Suresh, S.o K.Ramaseshaiah, D.No.15-609, Kamala Nagar, Anantapur | | ANANTAPUR | | ANDHRA PRADESH |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Head - Car Product Group,Tata Motors,Mumbai | | Head-Car Product Group, Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit, V-Floor, One Forbesm, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai - 400 001 | | MUMBAI | | ANDHRA PRADESH | | 2. 5. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,Mumbai | | TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,rep.by its Authorised Signatory, 18 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai - 400 001 | | MUMBAI | | MAHARASHTRA | | 3. 4.Managing Director, Prani Auto Plaza,ANANTAPUR | | Managing Director, Prani Auto Plaza Pvt.Ltd., TOR Towers, Obulareddy Nagar, N.H.7 By-pass, Anantapur | | ANANTAPUR | | ANDHRA PRADESH | | 4. 3.TMFL KURNOOL BRANCH | | Rep.by its Authorized Signatory, 61/1/6A2,BV Regent Plaza, Kallur Road, Beside Srinivasa Theatre, Kurnool -518 002 | | KURNOOL | | ANDHRA PRADESH | | 5. 2. Regional Manager, Tata Motors,Bangalore | | Regional Manager, Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, 14th Floor, Canberra Block, UB City 24, Vittal Maliya Road, Bangalor - 560001 | | BANGALORE | | BANGALORE |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC). Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member. Friday, the 19th day of September, 2014 C.C.NO.86/2010 Between: Kalimisetty Suresh S/o K.Ramaseshaiah D.No.15-609, Kamalanagar Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant Vs. - Head, Car Product Group,
Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit, V Floor, One Forbes, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. - The Regional Manager,
Tata Motors, Passenger Car Business Unit, 14th floor, Canberra Block, UB City 24 Vittal Maliya Road Bangalore – 560 001. - Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
Kurnool Branch rep. by its Authorized Signatory 61/1/6A2, B.V.Regenta Plaza, Kallur Road, Beside Sreenivasa Theatre, Kurnool – 518 002. - The Managing Director,
Prani Auto Plaza Pvt. Ltd., TOR Towers, Obulareddy Nagar, NH 7 Bypass Ananthapuramu. - Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office, Nanavati Mahalaya, 3rd floor, 18 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai – 400 001. …Opposite parties This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Sreedhar, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.Shyam Prasad, Advocate for the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party is called absent and set-exparte, Sri P.Sreekanth, Advocate for the opposite parties 3 & 5 and Sri A.Muralidhar Reddy, Advocate for the 4th opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following: O R D E R Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 and direct the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 to repay the amount already paid by the complainant of Rs.1,21,173/- along-with interest @ 24% p.a. on the said amount, to pay balance of amount to the 5th opposite party which is yet to be realized by the 5th opposite party, who advanced the loan towards purchase of car and to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the plaintiff with costs of the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the case are that :- The complainant purchased Nano LX Car from the 4th opposite party on 18-03-210, which was manufactured by the opposite parties 1 & 2 , which has a branch office at Kunrool, who is 3rd opposite party and after payment of Rs.77,193/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid through 5th opposite party, who financed vide letter dt.26-08-2009. The vehicle was registered bearing No.AP-02-AE-4257 on 06-04-2010. The said car did not give assured millage and there was some manufacturing defect in the car in the said context and also defect in fuel gauge. Inspite of repeated requests and correspondence by the complainant, the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 did not rectify the defects. Hence the complainant filed the complaint claiming refund of rs.1,21,173/- along-with interest on the said amount @ 24% p.a. and also to pay the balance of amount to 5th opposite party, which is yet to be realized by the 5th opposite party, who advanced loan towards the purchase of car. Further to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony alleged to have been suffered by the complainant with costs of this complaint. 3. The 1st opposite party filed written statement opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint. 4. The brief facts of the counter are basing on the complaint of the complainant about poor millage necessary repairs were undertaken and the complainant was requested to take delivery of the car and the complainant himself took millage readings of the car and he got the millage of 20.35 K.Ms. per liter prescribed by the opposite parties and the complainant did not produce any cogent report from any authorized laboratory about the poor millage and therefore his allegation of poor millage has not been established. The opposite parties are not responsible for the acts and omission of the complainant. 5. The opposite parties 3 & 5 filed their counter and pleaded that the complainant cannot ask them to stop presentation of cheques towards his E.M.Is., and they are not concerned with the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 and the alleged dispute of the complainant and the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4. They are only financiers and as per the agreement, terms and conditions, the complainant has to pay E.M.Is. regularly without any default and that the complainant did not quantify and assess his claim against the opposite parties 3 & 5. 6. The 4th opposite party pleaded that there was no poor millage and to defame only the complainant made false allegation and the required services were rendered to the complainant’s vehicle and still the vehicle is lying in the premises of the 4th opposite party for which the complainant is liable to pay demurrage charges of Rs.100/- per day and inspite of repeated requests the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle after service and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 7. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents, the matter was disposed off by this Forum vide orders dt.30-09-2010: ORDER - In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,08,346/- towards cost of the car and also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amounts from the date of complaint i.e. 23-06-2010 till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said amount shall be payable to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. However the complaint against the opposite parties 3 & 5 is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 8. The opposite parties 1 & 2 not satisfying with the orders of this Forum preferred an appeal vide F.A.No.30/2011 before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad. 9. In F.A.No.30/11 against C.C.No.86/2010 the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad has remanded the matter with a direction for fresh disposal according to law after giving an opportunity to both sides and also keeping in view of the observations made by the Commission. The Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad observed that poor millage would be on account several factors such as improper use of the car, driving habits of the driver, road condition, tyre pressure, quality of fuel and clutch operations etc., The complainant did not produce any evidence in the said context nor the District Forum did not consider the contention of the opposite parties and ordered for refund of the amount to the complainant. Further the State Commission observed in a decision reported in Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar Gagotra JT 2006(4) SC 113 it was held that the manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the car or its price merely because some defect appears. The complainant did not mention in the complaint that third test has given 15.21 km. per liter in the complaint and the complainant did not produce any expert evidence of his own accord nor requested the District Forum to call for an expert report from an appropriate laboratory to substantiate the allegations of the manufacturing defects in the car and also to ascertain and examine the nature of defects in the car. Hence the State Commission remanded the matter for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to both sides. 10. After remand by the State Commission the 1st opposite party has sought for expert opinion vide I.A.No.42/13 and the same was allowed and directed both the parties to notify the expert for the inspection of the car within the local jurisdiction. After considering expert list submitted by both parties, Head of the Department of Automobiles, Govt. Polytechnic College, Ananthapuramu was requested to give expert opinion by inspecting the complainant’s Nano LX Car bearing Registration No.AP-02-AE-4257, which is in the custody of the 4th opposite party and the fee was fixed @ Rs.1,000/- payable directly to the expert by the opposite party directly. The said order was passed on 24-03-2014. 11. Subsequently the 1st opposite party did not take any initiation to implement the order of this Forum to get the car inspected by the expert by producing the same before them by giving notice to all other parties. Inspite of giving number of adjournments and giving lot of time to get expert opinion, the 1st opposite party failed to get expert opinion by producing the car before the expert for their opinion and as the said car is in the custody of the 4th opposite party it is the duty of the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 to get the expert opinion. Inspite of giving number of adjournments and time to the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4, they failed to produce the car before the experts to give their opinion shows their negligence. It is the opposite party No.1 who is appellant in the A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad, who argued that the complainant has not followed section 13(1)(c) of Consumer Protection Act in order to prove the defect in the car and considering the said fact the A.P.State Commission has remanded the matter for fresh disposal giving equal opportunity to both parties but the fact remains that inspite of giving number of opportunities to the 1st opposite party, the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 have failed to produce the car before the experts who were appointed as per their choice within local limits of this Forum. This shows the negligent attitude of the opposite parties in not complying the orders of this Forum. 12. In support of the complainant’s contention, the citation filed by the complainant is as follows: 1999 Lawpad(SC) 683 between M.R.F. Limited Vs. Jagdish Lal and another “ The Direct Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any goods – (a)(b)(c) where the complaint alleges a defect – Court should have followed the procedure under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – material on the record shows that the complainant had given the tyre and the tube which had burst, to the dealer, who in turn had sent it to the appellant – Held, the complainant was not in possession of the tyre and the tube – procedure prescribed under section 13(1)(c) of the Act, was therefore not capable of being followed – not see how any fault can be found “ It was observed that “ the material on the record shows that the complainant had given the tyre and the tube which had burst, to the dealer, who in turn had sent it to the appellant. The procedure prescribed under section 13(1)© of the Act, was therefore, not capable of being followed because the complainant was not in possession of the tyre and the tube. There is no material to show that the appellant had returned the tyre and the tube to the respondent. That being the factual matrix, we do not see how any fault can be found with the District Forum, the State Forum or the National Commission in the matter of not following the procedure under section 13(1)© of the Act. “ In the instant case also the complainant has handed over the car to the opposite party No.4 and it is still in the custody of the opposite party No.4. Hence, it is the liability of the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 to produce the car before the experts for their opinion. They have not evinced any interest to do so even after this Forum’s direction and giving number of opportunities, the opposite parties failed to produce the car before the experts for their opinion. Hence, we are of the view that as the opposite parties have not adduced any new evidence in favour of their arguments, previous orders passed by this Forum stands good and there is no need to adjudicate the matter afresh. 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,08,346.00 towards cost of the car and also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for mental agony with interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amounts from the date of complaint i.e. 23-06-2010 till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said amounts shall be payable to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The complaint against the opposite parties 3 & 5 is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 19th day of September, 2014. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC), DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES: -NIL- - NIL- EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Provisional Receipt dt.16-04-2009 issued by 3rd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A2 - Letter of allotment of Nano Car issued by the 1st opposite party. Ex.A3 - Letter dt.19-10-2009 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A4 - Letter dt.26-08-2009 issued by Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Pune to the complainant. Ex.A5 - Delivery Challan dt.18-03-2010 issued by 4th opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A6 - Price List & Order Form relating accessories issued by the Tata Motors. Ex.A7 - Accessories relating to Nano Car issued by the 4th opposite party. Ex.A8 - Email dt.20-03-2010 sent by the complainant to Ex.A11 - Cash Bill dt.18-03-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A12 - Cash Bill dt.18-03-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A13 - Photo copy of an overview relating to indicators and gauges issued by the Tata Motors Ltd., Ex.A14 - Cash Bill dt.22-03-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A15 - Cash Bill dt.26-03-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A16 - Cash Bill dt.01-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A17 - Cash Bill dt.07-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A18 - Tax Invoice dt.09-04-2010 issued by 4th opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex.A19 - Cash Memo dt.09-04-2010 issued by IBP Auto Services to the complainant. Ex.A20 - Cash Memo dt.09-04-2010 issued by IBP Auto Services to the complainant. Ex.A21 - Letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. Ex.A22 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to the tatanano@tmf.co.in Ex.A23 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to tatanano@tatamotors.com Ex.A24 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to prani_service@yahoo.co.in Ex.A25 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to Ex.A26 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to custqueries@tmf.co.in Ex.A27 - E-mail letter dt.19-04-2010 sent by the complainant to carpmg@tatamotors.com Ex.A28 - Bill for Fax dt.19-04-2010 issued by Aruondaya Communications, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A29 - E-mail letter dt.21-04-2010 sent by the complainant to Shrivardhan. Ex.A33 - Cash Bill dt.25-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A34 - Photo copy relating to fuel tank capacity and gas pump accuracy relating to Nano car issued by Tata Motors Ltd., Ex.A35 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A36 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A37 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A38 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A39 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A40 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A41 - Cash Bill dt.27-04-2010 issued by Sri Ganesh Petroleum, Anantapur to the complainant. Ex.A42 - Letter dt.28-04-2010 sent by the complainant to the 4th opposite party. Ex.A43 - E-mail dt.28-04-2010 sent by the complainant to Shrivardhan.r@ customercare@ complainant. Ex.A49 - Email dt.29-04-2010 sent by the complainant to Ex.A51 - Email dt.05-05-2010 sent by the complainant to Pune. Ex.A54 - Postal acknowledgment signed by the 5th opposite party. Ex.A55 - Letter dt.17-05-2010 sent by 4th opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A56 - Photo copy of Owner’s Manual & Service Book issued by Tata Motors. Ex.A57 - Booklet relating to Owner’s Manual& Service Book issued by Tata Motors. Ex.A58 - Photographs relating to damaged part of Nano car. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES -NIL – Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC), DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU Typed by JPNN | |
