BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Jaspreet Singh resident of House No.1806, Phase-5, Mohali (Pb.)

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Hind Motors (India) Ltd., Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Director;

2.      Manager/Branch Head Hind Motors (India) Ltd., B-16, Industrial Area, Phse-2, Mohali.

3.      Tata Motors Limited, through its Managing Director, Pune Works, KD-03, Car Plant, Sector 15 & 15-A, PCNTDA, Chikhali, Pune-410501.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2

Sh. P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for OP-3.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 28.12.2006 the complainant purchased a Sumo Victa GX vehicle.  The total cost of the vehicle was Rs.6,03,908.06 out of which Rs.1 lac was paid by the complainant as down payment and Rs.5 lacs was financed through Tata Finance Pvt. Ltd. Soon after purchase the vehicle started giving trouble viz. AC was not functioning, rear wiper nozzle was not available, two switches damaged during opening of dash board/penal for carrying out AC repair, rivets missing from gear box and central locking system failed twice thus immobilizing the vehicle for a week. The above problems which occurred even before the 1^st service of the vehicle, were duly intimated to the OPs.  The vehicle was having warranty of 18 months and was having extended warranty of 3 years for which the OPs charged Rs.6,500/-.  It has been alleged that since day one the vehicle was giving one problem or the other and he had to shed thousands of rupees for repairs and the defects in the car even after repairs were existing.  It has been alleged by the complainant that the act and conduct of the OPs has caused tremendous mental and physical harassment as well as financial loss to him as the vehicle has not yet touched 30000 kms., value of the vehicle has depreciated, he could not sell the same and yet he was regularly paying the EMI of Rs.10,868/-. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OPs 1 & 2 submitted that the complainant pointed out the defect regarding the AC for the first time in May 2009 only.  It has been denied that the complainant made complaints again and again.  It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion or otherwise to show that the vehicle in question has any inherent defect as alleged or required any extensive repair.  It has been alleged that number of factors might have contributed to the alleged defects such as rough use, rough roads and not driving with the prescribed air in the tyres.   It has been alleged that the vehicle was not used as per warranty terms and that the present complaint has been filed with malafide intention just to extract heavy amount from the OPs.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their separate written reply OP-3 took almost similar pleas as were taken by OPs 1 & 2 in their written reply. It has been vehemently denied that the vehicle developed any of the alleged defects on regular basis; that AC was not working in 2007; that the answering OP was not having the spare parts; that the answering OP extended the warranty or that the EGR pipe was suffering from some leakage and was removed by OP-2.  It has been submitted that in May 2009 although the vehicle was out of warranty still the same was attended promptly. It has been alleged that the complainant has concocted a totally false story and the vehicle has not been suffering from any of the alleged defects.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments.

6.             There is no dispute about it that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 28.12.2006.  It was winter season at that time and the need for the A.C. started in March, 2007. The contention of the complainant is that A.C. cooling was not sufficient and central locking system went out of order.  The complainant therefore took the vehicle to the workshop on 25.04.2007 and lodged the complaint in this respect regarding which the job card Annexure C-32 was prepared.  Annexure C-41 and C-42 dated 25.04.2007 show that A.C. cooling was insufficient and the central locking element was to be renewed.  However again on 9.05.2007 the vehicle was taken to the workshop because A.C. cooling was insufficient.  A.C. system was checked and the fault was to be determined.  When no improvement took place the complainant wrote a letter Annexure C-24 and faxed it to the OP-1 intimating to them that central locking system failed twice and was not working satisfactorily due to which the vehicle remained non functional for 7 days.  He also reported that the A.C. of the vehicle was not functioning properly. Finding that there was no response from the OPs he again faxed a letter Annexure C-23 in this respect on 10.06.2007 and thereafter again took the vehicle to the OP-1 on 18.06.2007 regarding which the job card Annexure C-33 was prepared.  In this job card also the A.C. system was reported to be checked to determine the fault including some other defects.  When the defects were not cured the complainant wrote email Annexure C-19 on 24.07.2007 intimating to them that they were delaying the matter intentionally and were not correcting the fault in the A.C. He requested again through Annexure C-21 to correct the system.  It however, appears that there was no improvement.

7.             Annexure C-15 is the copy of the email dated 25.10.2007 intimating to the OPs that the technical staff had failed to rectify A.C. of the vehicle despite number of visits starting April, 2006.  According to him he had emailed this problem to Gurgaon Office and requested them to take immediate action as the failure to rectify A.C. was causing immense damage  mentally, physically and financially.  The copies were sent through Annexure C-16 and C-18 to other OPs also.  Thereafter the winter started and it appears the A.C. was not used by the complainant due to which no complaint was made after 25.10.2007.  However, when summer started and the A.C. did not work he took the vehicle on 22.02.2008 to the workshop of the OP regarding which the job sheet Annexure C-34 was prepared and the complaint about non working of A.C. system was made.  It appears the OPs tried to rectify the defect but they could not.  The vehicle however had to be taken again to the workshop of OP-1 on 6.04.2009 regarding A.C. gas, regarding which job card Annexure C-37 was prepared.  It records assembly A.C. compressor and for replacing the compressor for which the amount was recovered from the complainant.  The matter however did not improve and again the complainant took the vehicle on 15.04.2009 to the workshop of the OP for A.C. gas regarding which job card Annexure C-38 was prepared.  The complainant again wrote the email Annexure C-17 on 2.05.2009 to the OPs that he has suffered enough financially, mentally and physically due to non performance and repeated breakdown of the vehicle.  According to him he had wasted two and a half years on defective vehicle for which he had been paying huge investment.  The vehicle had been handed over to OP-1 on 1.05.2009. He again wrote email Annexure C-9 on 26.05.2009 intimating that the A.C. had been non functional since he purchased the vehicle and had been driving the same with non performing A.C. since first summer of the purchase.  The keyless entry system had also failed, defogger was non functional since the day of the delivery and various other defects were intimated. A reminder was sent on 28.05.2009 through Annexure C-12 and thereafter on 30.05.2009 through Annexure C-11. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 30.06.2009 for A.C. gas recharge of A.C. system and for replacing the compressor.  The recharging and the replacement of compressor were done free-of-cost.

8.             The above facts shows that the A.C. had been giving trouble to the complainant from the very beginning and had not been got repaired so far.  The problem had continued during the warranty period.  The OPs are therefore liable to rectify the system, so that the complainant does not face harassment.  The above history shows that instead of enjoying the luxury of the car, the complainant had been waiting in the workshop of the OP for getting the vehicle repaired thereby wasting his precious time and neglecting his other duties.  It appears before putting the vehicle on road, the OPs did not check the defects properly and they have put the faulty vehicle on road causing immense harassment to the customers purchasing the same.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that besides replacing the A.C. free-of-cost, the OPs shall also pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the harassment caused to him.  The A.C. shall be replaced by them to the satisfaction of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the vehicle in the workshop failing which they would pay a lump sum of Rs.50,000/- as the cost of replacement and labour charges with which the complainant would be free to get the same repaired/replaced from outside.  The complainant would also be entitled to Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.