Tripura

StateCommission

A/10/2020

The Manager, TATA Motors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jahir Hossain. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S Pal.

06 Mar 2021

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Present

 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

Mr. Kamalendu Bikash Das,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A.10.2020

 

 

1. The Manager, 

Tata Motors Ltd.,

Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Math Chowmuhani, Jail Road,

Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura, Pin - 799001. 

                                                          ….    ….    ….    Appellant/Opposite PartyNo.2.

                                                                       

Vs

 

 

 

1. Jahir Hossain,

S/o Mihir Miah,

Resident of West Joynagar, Near Mahabir Club, Rajnagar,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Pin - 799001,

District - West Tripura, Agartala.

….    ….    ….   Respondent/Complainant.

1. Tata Motors Ltd.,

Represented by its Chairman,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Craves Road,

MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai, Pin – 400093.

 

2. The Branch Manager, 

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

Agartala Branch Office, Agartala HO, 

Math Chowmuhani, College Road, 

P.O. College Tilla, P.S. West Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura. 

 

3. The Branch Manager, 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, 

Agartala Branch Office, 1^st Floor Above  

Showroom, Near Raymonds, Mantri Bari Road, 

RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala H.O, 

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin – 799001.

….    ….    ….   Proforma Respondents.

 

For the Appellant:                                                         Mr. Subhajit Paul, Adv.

For the Respondent/Complainant:                              Ms. Sumi Datta, Adv.

For the Proforma Respondent No.1:                            Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

For the Proforma Respondent No.2 and 3:                  Mr. Prabal Kr. Ghosh, Adv.

 

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.A.11.2020

 

1. Tata Motors Ltd.,

Represented by its Chairman,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Craves Road,

MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai, Pin - 400093.

Represented by its Authorised Signatory and Senior Manager (Legal), Sri Tuhin Chatterjee, S/o of Late Parimal Chatterjee, having his office at 1842, Rajdanga Main Road, Rene Tower, 3^rd Floor, P.O. EKTP, P.S. Kasba, Kolkata - 700107, District: 24 Parganas South.

1.  

                                                         

Vs

 

 

 

1. Jahir Hossain,

S/o Mihir Miah,

Resident of West Joynagar, Near Mahabir Club, Rajnagar,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, Pin - 799001,

District - West Tripura, Agartala.

….    ….    ….   Complainant/Respondent No.1.

2. The Manager, 

Tata Motors Ltd.,

Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Math Chowmuhani, Jail Road,

Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Agartala,Pin – 799001.

 

3. The Branch Manager, 

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

Agartala Branch Office, Agartala HO, 

Math Chowmuhani, College Road, 

P.O. College Tilla, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001. 

 

4. The Branch Manager, 

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, 

Agartala Branch Office, 1^st Floor above Showroom,

Near Raymonds, Mantri Bari Road, RMS Chowmuhani, Agartala H.O, 

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin - 799001.

….    ….    ….   Respondent No.2 to 4/Opposite party No.2, 3 and 4.

 

For the Appellant:                                                Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.

For the Respondent/Complainant:                    Ms. Sumi Datta, Adv.

For the Respondent No.1:                                   Mr. Subhajit Paul, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3 and 4:                        Mr. Prabal Kr. Ghosh, Adv.     

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          06.03.2021.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

These appeals have been preferredagainst the judgment dated 05.11.2020passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.40 of 2019whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite party no.1 and 2 i.e. the appellants in both the appeals, are jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as professional loss,Rs.10,000/- as sufferings of mental agony and harassment as well as Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, in total Rs.1,65,000/-to the complainant. The payment is to be made within two months from the date of judgment, failing which; it will carry interest @9% per annum till the payment is made in full. The learned District Commission also directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 to curing the defective vehicle within two months from the date of judgment.

As the facts involved in both the appeals are similar and the questions of law involved are also same, also the judgment impugned in both the appeals is same, hence both the appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Subhajit Paul, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal Case No.A/10/2020 and Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel also appearing on behalf of the appellant in Appeal Case No.A/11/2020as well asMs. Sumi Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as complainant). Also heard Mr. Prabal Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Proforma respondent no.2 and 3 in Appeal Case No.A/10/2020 and respondent no.3 and 4 in Appeal Case No.A/11/2020 respectively.
3. After going through the judgment and evidence on record this Commission on 06.02.2021 passed the following orders:-

“At the time of hearing as proposed by this Commission, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Subhajit Pal has agreed to that the appellant, Progressive Motors, dealer of the Tata Motors Ltd. will inspect the vehicle through his Service Manager/Engineer though earlier the respondent-complainant did not inform regarding the defect of the vehicle except the contention made in the Demand Notice. Ms. Sumi Datta, Ld. Counsel also agreed to the proposal of the Commission.

In view of the above, the appellant, Progressive Motors, dealer of the Tata Motors shall inspect the vehicle of the respondent-complainant which is kept in front of the house of the respondent-complainant on 15.02.2021 at about 12.00 noon and submit the inspection report by 26^th February, 2021 before this Commission. The respondent-complainant is also at liberty to be present at the time of inspection along with an Automobile Engineer of his own choice. Ld. Counsel for the parties may also be present at the time of inspection, if so advised.

Copy of this order be furnished to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties.

List the matter on 06.03.2021 for hearing.”

4. Today when the matter is taken up for further hearing, Ld. Counsel for the appellant in Appeal Case No.A/10/2020, the Manager, Tata Motors Ltd.,Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has filed an application wherein it is stated that the vehicle of the complainant was meticulously inspected by the Service Manager of the appellant, namely, Sri Sandeep Debnath along with two Members of automobile technicians on 15.02.2021 and the authority who inspected the vehicle observed as follows:-

1. Unauthorized modification done on the vehicle
2. Chassis frame extended on rear side.
3. Chassis welding found on rear side.
4. Unauthorized welding found on the load body of the vehicle.
5. Unauthorized modification on suspension system.
6. Lift sprint modification on both side rear and front portion.
7. Rear side load body increased by 4 feet.

5. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. From the impugned judgment it is evident that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Unless any defect covered by the warranty clause prove, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for negligence or deficiency in service. In absence of manufacturing defect it is very difficult for a Court to award any compensation against the manufacturer for deficiency of service or negligence. The learned District Commission decided the whole case of the complainant and awarded the compensation relying on the demand notice only, which according to this Commission, is not proper. At this stage, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals as well as the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1-complainant submitted that it would be better to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case before the learned District Commission for the interest of justice as the subject matter of the inspection was not before the learned District Forum while deciding the case. Considering the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case before the learned District Commission to decide the matter afresh. Accordingly, it is ordered.
6. The appellants in both the appeals are at liberty to submit the inspection report of the Service Manager and two other Automobile Technicians regarding the vehicle in question before the learned District Commission and the respondent no.1-complainant is also at liberty to place their submission on the said inspection report and any other plea in accordance with law. The learned District Commission shall issue notice to the parties after receipt of this judgment for their appearance and decide the case afresh considering the inspection report, if any submitted by the appellants and also the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1-complainant.

With above, both the appeals are disposed of.

Send down the records to the learned DistrictCommission, West Tripura, Agartala.                

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura