JUDGEMENT
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one Fiat Car from the show room of K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. being Model No. Grande Punto, Chasis No. MC # 11815E07018963GNZ, Vehicle Registrartion No. WB-06E/0595 on 12.08.2010 with an expectation that same shall be suitable. But from the very next day from the date of purchasing the said car i.e. on 13.08.2010 the back seat adjustment controller was found to be broken and steering wheel had sharp edges and unclean and was hazardous for the person driving it.
On 14.08.2010 another new problem started regarding the alignment of the car and the car was not running between the fourth and fifth gear for which complainant immediately contacted with the service center of K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (TATA Motors Fiat) division and was represented by the said service center told that they will check up those problems and requested the complainant to keep the said car in the service center for some days. Accordingly on 26.08.2010 complainant went to the said service center to take the said car and at that time the agent of the service center said that due to the non-availability of the spare parts they failed to repair the problems and told the complainant to wait for one month for repairing. It is pertinent to mention that since 12.08.2010 the date of purchase, complainant could not run the car in the road due to mechanical defects of the said car.
Further on 23.09.2010 the Service Centre handed over the said car to the complainant and it is found that the alignment problem had been fixed, door locks were adjusted, front seat sliding said position and setting was adjusted, gear shift machine adjusted, but it is also found that the alignment problem shifted from right to left and air condition releasing foul smell when turned on. Though on 26.09.2010 the complainant made complaint before the service center till 08.10.2010 and they did not take the said car for repairing. On 13.10.2010 the service center handed over the said car by sending a bill stating that electro fan and assembly track were replaced, front seat rest had been replaced, front seat sliding rail replaced and R/R fan motor assembly. But actually it was found that the alignment problem remained the same with a second-hand rail, the gear problem and the air condition remained at it was before.
It is further submitted that the car was kept in the garage for seven days, but without any repairing work, the car was handed over to the complainant. Thus the damage is not only financial but also traumatic because the car became luxury and terror machine and by handing over a defective first hand car to the complainant at the time of purchasing, the op caused deficiency of service and also in such a manner suffered pain and agony including financial loss and for which complainant vide his letter dated 29.10.2010 requested the Director of K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. to compensate and replace the said vehicle with a new one fit for use on the road, by stating all the facts.
It is further alleged that op instead of replacing the said vehicle with a new one fit car, they issue tax invoice on 13.10.2010 and the op again took the said car for replacing of the above mentioned effectsand issued a service slip on 20.11.2010. Thereafter Works Manager vide his letter dated 27.11.2010 requested the complainant that the company regretted for their fault and promised that such things would not repeat in future. Though complainant submitted a request to replace the car by handing over a new car to the complainant. Further complainant submitted that complaint of the car was started since it has been purchased and all the works had been done by the said service center within warranty period, but the ops always sent bill for repairing charge and the complainant always made payment of that bills.
Subsequently the customer relationship manager vide his letter dated 18.01.2012 regretted and promised to ensure that such things will not repeat in future and requested the complainant to take back the car and also sent a receipt on 10.02.2012 which the complainant duly paid. Vide a letter dated 10.02.2012 again complainant informed to the General Manager (Service) that as per their commitment he again took up the delivery of the car but if in future any further problem so arise, the complainant has no other option but to take legal steps against them.
Subsequently complainant took delivery of the car from the service center on 10.02.2012, but from the next date i.e. on 13.02.2012 the car started disturbance to run and finally on 21.01.2013 the car was handed over to the service station for repairing to remove the disturbances of the said vehicle for which complainant paidRs. 1,900/-. Fact remains since his purchase of the said car, complainant was unable to use the car for one day smoothly and even after getting repeated promises from the ops, the car shows different technical and built-up problems and even ops claimed repairing charges and on compulsion complainant paid the charges even when the complainant requested the ops to replace the car by delivering him a new one but his prayer has been turned down by the said ops.
Further from the date of purchasing the aforesaid car the complainant has been suffering a lot and particularly to pay aforesaid loan to Tata Capital Ltd. for purchasing the aforesaid car and on the other hand complainant is not in a position to avail of the utility of the said car. Moreover complainant purchased the said car for business purpose as the nature of business is such that the complainant has to travel from North to South in Kolkata and in spite of having a car, complainant has to incur daily expenses more than Rs. 600/- per day. So invariably ops are responsible for such huge loss and also harassment and mental agony and in the above circumstances complainant has prayed for replacing a new one and deliver the same to the complainant immediately or to refund entire amount which has been claimed by the op during warranty period against repairing and other compensation.
On the other hand op K.B. Motors by filing written version has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer as per of the C.P. Act 1986 and all the allegations of the complainant is denied by the op. It is further submitted by the op that as and when complainant prayed for service ops attended and gave him redressal to his satisfaction.
It is further admitted that complainant no doubt purchased the Fiat Motors finally on 31.07.2010 and complainant run the vehicle for 26751 kms. and finally the vehicle was repaired on 13.02.2013 and in between 31.07.2010 and 13.02.2013, complainant used the vehicle comfortably up to 26751 kms. without any problem. When complainant came to know that the TATA-FIAT alliance was ending on 31.03.2013, he lodged a false claim against the ops as he had fear that the re-sale value of his vehicle will fall so he has taken this step to protect his interest. If actually the vehicle had any problem, then how the complainant used the vehicle for 31 months and run for 26751 kms. without facing any problem. Therefore the matter is completely barred by limitation.
It is further submitted that there is no alliance in between the TATA-FIAT as they are separate company and there is no mechanical defects in the car, complainant should complain against the FIAT Company because the car is manufactured by the FIAT company and not by TATA. Op further submitted that till 31.03.2013 and after that there is no alliance between the two company and both are now individual and they handle their individual customers. Therefore now the said car’s problem is FIAT’s problem not K.B. Motors and for which without adding FIAT company as a party, complaint is not maintainable.
In the complaint, complainanthas failed to point out any allegation of deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the op and on this score alone this complaint should be dismissed and in the above circumstances, ops prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
On in depth study of the complaint and written version and also considering the documents as filed by the complainant, further relying upon the documents filed by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, it is found that op nos. 1 to 4 admitted that complainant purchased FIAT vehicle on 31.07.2010 and the customer plied the vehicle for 26751 kms. and for repairs it was placed on 13.02.2013 and in between 31.07.2010 to 13.02.2013, complainant used the vehicle and run for about 26751 kms. without any problem. But op nos. 1 to 4 have alleged that complainant came to know that TATA-FIAT alliance was ending on 31.03.2013, he lodged a false claim against the ops as he had fear that the re-sale value of his vehicle will fall so he has taken this step to protect his interest and if the vehicle had any problem then how the customer used the vehicle for 31 months and ran it for 26751 kms. without any problem. So the matter is completely time barred.
Further it is alleged that there is no alliance in between TATA-FIAT company at present and two companies are now completely different companies and if there is any mechanical defect, then the complainant should complain against the FIAT company because the car is manufactured by the FIAT company and not by TATA and it is also specifically alleged that op nos. 1 to 4 were with FIAT till 31.03.2013 and after that there is no alliance between the two company and both are now completely different companies and therefore anyhow the said car problem is FIAT problem and not K.B. Motors.
Moreover ops’ assertion is that in the complaint there is no allegation of negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering ops and on the above score this complaint should be dismissed. Considering the entire written version, it is clear that about purchase and regarding running and plying of the vehicle from 31.07.2010 to 13.02.2013 are all undisputed fact. Anyhow question is whether there is any manufacturing defect or not in the said car. In this regard we have gone through the tax invoice wherefrom it is found that complainant purchased the vehicle from K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. and received the car on delivery on 12.08.2010 from K.B. Motors and at that time complainant received the final invoice, owner’s manual, extended warranty, insurance coverage, tool key etc. including road tax, registration cost etc. and from repairing request received it is found that on 23.09.2010 it was placed before K.B. Motors service center and it was repaired and thereafter complainant received back it.
Subsequently on 20.11.2010 it was placed for some repairing and same was done and complainant received back it and subsequently on 31.03.2011 complainant placed the car for repairing for gear check up to remove some noise indicator problem etc. and same were repaired and thereafter complainant received back it and prior to that on 21.01.2013 running repairing was also made. But in no case any sort of manufacturing defect was detected. But there was no complaint of any manufacturing defect in respect of said vehicle. But any how some other problems were raised by the complainant to the op that regarding the alignment problem was shifted from right to left and air conditioner was releasing foul smell whenever turned on, front seat rail was replaced with a second hand rail, gear problem persisted and air conditioner issue remained unaddressed.
So considering all the above fact, it is found that in respect of the aforesaid allegation op nos. 1 to 4 have not made any positive assertion that in fact there is no problem in the said vehicle. Truth is that op nos. 1 to 4 tried to discharge their liability in view of the fact they have their no relation with FIAT company after 31.03.2013 because op nos. 1 to 4 are not service center of FIAT company from 31.03.2013. Fact remains that FIAT Company is made parties, notices was served upon them but they did not turn up. But truth is that complainant purchased the said vehicle on 31.07.2010 from the op nos. 1 to 4 the dealer of TATA-FIAT at the relevant time and after 31.03.2010 no doubt op nos. 1 to 4 are not related with FIAT company and at the same time TATA-FIAT alliance has already been terminated w.e.f. 31.03.2013.
But after proper consideration of the entire materials it is found that complainant purchased the said vehicle on 31.07.2010 and lastly on 13.02.2013 he placed the vehicle to the op nos. 1 to 4’s service center where necessary repairing work and other services were given by the op nos. 1 to 4. But fact remains complainant has not stated anywhere what was the warranty period of the said vehicle. In this regard it is to be mentioned that complainant has not filed the warranty card wherefrom it would be found that there was how many years warranty. On the other hand it is found that warranty period is generally for one year. So, considering the actual date of delivery, it is found that complainant took delivery of the said car on 12.08.2010 and lastly he placed the said car to the op nos. 1 to 4 service center on 13.02.2013. But complainant has failed to prove or to show that his warranty period is in existence and at the same time complainant has failed to show by any cogent document what is the total period of warranty. At the same time in the complaint, complainant is silent about the warranty period. Op has also not stated anything about warranty period etc. But opnos. 1 to 4 have already stated that the tie up in between the op nos. 1 to 4 and FIAT Company had already expired on 31.03.2013. So invariably after 31.03.2013 present ops have no liability regarding the present car. But it should be kept in our mind that complainant has miserably failed to prove by any cogent evidence that during warranty period he made any such allegations to the manufacturer. But on 3 or 4 occasions he went there when the K.B. Motors no doubt rendered all the services as per terms and conditions. At the same time it is found that complainant used the said vehicle for 31 months crossing over 26751 kms. and fact remains the use of the vehicle by the complainant was not a limited use which is evident from the fact of crossing 26751 kms. within 31 months. That means no severe problem was there for which the car had been run. But anyhow the laches on the part of the op nos. 1 to 4 or their negligence and deficiency is not apparently proved.
But considering the entire fact and circumstances we find that by passing of necessary order relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave petition 21178 – 21180/2009 – C.N. Anwar –Vs- M/s FIAT Ltd. &Ors., we are giving such direction to the parties to follow up the direction and manufacturing company of the vehicle is hereby directed to issue such certificate to the effect that vehicle is free from any manufacturing defect and it has no problem and in this regard that order can only be passed against FIAT company not against the op nos. 1 to 4 when they are not the service center of FIAT company.
Accordingly the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence, it is
ORDEDRED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed exparte against op no. 4A FIAT Group Automobile India Pvt. Ltd. with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and same is dismissed on contest against op nos. 1 to 4 but without any cost.
Op no. 4A is hereby directed to issue a certificate after checking the vehicle to that effect that the said vehicle does not suffer from any manufacturing defect and if any repairing is required op no. 4A shall have to repair it with the help of their technical expert through their service center within the Kolkata and hand over the said certificate as per order of this Forum to the complainant and same shall be completed by the op no. 4A within two months from the date of this order. But even after that if it is found that op no.4A is reluctant to comply the same, in that case op no. 4A shall have to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant forthwith failing which penal action shall be started against op no. 4A for which op no. 4A shall be responsible for their reluctant attitude to comply the order and for non-compliance of the order op no. 4A shall pay penal interest at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if said amount is collected it shall be deposited to this Forum’s account in the name of President, DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II.
