DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 419 of 2009 Date of Inst:25.03.2009 Date of Decision:26.05.2010 M/s Image Communication System, Shop No.8, M.G.Regency Complex, NH-21-A, Baddi District Solan (H.P.) through Sanjeev Sharma,2nd Address –House No.3338, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Showroom & Workshop : 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its Managing Director. 2. Tata Motors, Chandigarh Office SCO 170-171-172, Ist Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh (Regd.Offie) through its General Manager. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Naginder Singh, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP-1 Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for OP-2. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT M/s Image Communication System has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.3,73,161/- being the price of the car. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.5862/- spent on the repairs of the car. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental agony and compensation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that on 30.04.2008, he purchased a Tata Indica VX (DLG) car from OP-1 for Rs.3,73,161/- vide Annexure C-1. The said car was covered under warranty of 18 months. According to the complainant, just after 5 days of the purchase of the car, it started giving the trouble. So he took the car to the workshop of OP-1 with the following complaints: i) back door is not locking properly ii) Seat belt is not properly opening. iii) Dicky (boot door) is not responding. iv) Abnormal Noise At that time, the car had not covered 500 Kms. OP-1 removed some of the defects temporarily. However, the said defects again occurred. So on 17.05.2008, the complainant had to take the car to the workshop of OP-1 with the same complaints. OP-1 again returned the car after removal of the defects. However, the car again started giving trouble. On 22.05.2008, the complainant had to take the car again to the workshop of OP-1. On that day the alternator and power steering motor of the car were replaced as there were some manufacturing defects. However, no bill regarding the said repairs was given to the complainant at that time. According to the complainant, after some time, irritating noise again started coming out of the car and therefore, he wrote email (Annexure C-2) to Mr.Deepak JOhsi, M.D. mentioning the above said defects and failure on the part of OP-1 to rectify the defects. The complainant also requested for replacement of the car with another new car. On 31.05.208, the complainant received a bill (Annexure C-3) for the repairs done on 22.05.2008. The complainant kept on lodging the grievances with the company and its agents but they kept on making one excuse or the other. On 30.09.2008, the complainant again took the car to OP-1 and the power steering oil was changed at 12257 kms vide Annexure C-4 which is generally changed at 70000 kms. The complainant asked the engineer of the OP-1 as to why the oil has been changed so early but he failed to give any satisfactory reply. On 03.12.2008, the complainant again took the car to the workshop of OP-1 as it was having the problems. On that day, about 11 items including R/R steering rack assy (Power steering) were changed vide invoice dated 03.12.2008 (Annexure C-5). It has further been pleaded that on 25.12.2008, the car of the complainant met with an accident so he got it repaired from OP-1 by paying a sum of Rs.4632/-. It has been averred that at that time the respondent again top up the transmission oil (steering oil) and also replaced certain other parts of the car. The complainant enquired as to why the oil was being top up so early but no satisfactory answer was received. On 17.03.2009, the complainant again visited the workshop of OP-1 with some problems and on that day tension pulley for A/C and A/C idler were changed vide invoice dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure C-7). The engineer of OP-1 told the complainant for replacement of some parts as the irritating noise was still coming from the car. He gave an estimate of Rs.20502/- (Annexure C-8). Faced with this situation, the complainant wrote a letter to M.D. of OP-1 with copy to Area Manager of OP-2 with a request to replace the car as it was giving continuous problems since the day of its purchase. On 19.03.2009, the complainant received e-mail (Annexure C-9) asking him to contact Mr.Saket Chatrath of Customer Care. ACcoridngly, the complainant contacted him .He was assured that the parts will be changed for Rs.8900/- including the labour charges. When the complainant visited the workshop he was given another estimate of Rs.10,162/- (Annexure C-11) for replacement of pump power spring. On 23.03.2009, the complainant again reeived e-mail from OP-1 mentioning therein that the parts which were required to be changed are not covered under warranty and the complainant shall have to pay the price of the above said parts. According to the complainant, the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect and the OPs failed to remove the same which amounts to deficiency in service on their parts. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP-1, it has been pleaded that vehicle did not have any manufacturing defects and the same was a perfect merchantable automobile without any defects. It has further been pleaded that the vehicle was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant under the conditions of warranty. The repair of the vehicle as per job cards mentioned in the complaint has also been admitted. The writing of the e-mail dated 17.03.2009 (Annexure c-9) has been admitted. It has been pleaded that the estimates were given for the parts which were not covered under the warranty conditions. It has further been pleaded that the problem if any has occurred due to normal running and not due to any manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In its separate written statement, OP-2 took almost identical objections as taken by OP-1. It has been pleaded that the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after pre-delivery inspection and to his entire satisfaction. It has been pleaded that the warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and the violation thereof would result in forfeiture of the warranty terms. According to OP-2, the vehicle was not used properly and the vehicle was used in negligent manner and hence, the complainant is not entitled to any benefit under the terms and conditions of the warranty. In these circumstances, the car in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. Annexures C-3 to C-7 are the invoices raised by the OP-1. It is apparent from these invoices that the car was taken a number of times by the complainant for its repairs to the workshop of OP No.1 and each time some major parts of the car were replaced. Despite it OP-1 failed to set right the defects and the car is still giving trouble to the complainant. So it amounts to manufacturing defects. In case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Cdr. Udaybi reported in I(2008) CPJ-490 (NC), it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that where the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop for rectifying the defects on number of occasions and even thereafter the said defects were not set right, it amounts to deficiency in service. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi State Commission in the case titled as Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Charan Negi reported in IV(2007) CPJ 167. The Hon'ble State Commission has further held as under: “A consumer purchases new article to save himself from the inconvenience of second hand article as in the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to take the vehicle time and again for repairing for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable and in such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately”. 7. Faced with this situation, it was argued by the learned counsel for the OPs that the defects occurred due to the accident suffered by the car. This argument of the learned counsel is without any force because no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the repairs which are sought to be carried out are in any way connected with the accident. Otherwise also, the defects which have not been removed were brought to the notice of OPs even prior to the accident. So the defects pointed out could not be the result of accident. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to pay Rs.3,73,161/- after deducting the depreciation @ 20% as the vehicle had been used by the complainant for two years. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation of mental agony and harassment along with Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.03.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 26.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
