KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 291/2006 JUDGEMENT DATED : 05-01-2010 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. The General Manager (Commercial), Tata Motors, (formerly Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.) Bombay. Registered Office: Bombay House 24 Homimody Street, Mumbai – 400 001. 2. Tata Motors, (formerly Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd.) Passenger Car Business Unit, Vasudeva Building, 1st Floor, T.D. Road, Kochi – 682 011, Now at 3rd Floor, Tutus Towers, N.H. Bye-Pass Road, Padivattom, Kochi – 24. 3. Focuz Motors, (formerly Benz Motors) Focuz Towers, Edappally, Kochi – 682 024. 4. The Manager, Focuz Motors Workshop, Kavanad P.O., Kollam. (Rep. by Adv. M/s Menon & Menon) Vs RESPONDENTK.G. Jyothir Ghosh, Srimandiram, Njarakakal, Peringad P.O., Kollam. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. R. Bahuleyan & others) JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP No. 266/03 are under orders to replace the engine and A/c system of the complainant’s vehicle by defect free ones along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The said order dated 18-08-2005 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Tata Indica car on 10-01-2002 and that from the very beginning there were defects in the vehicle like excessive sound, lack of pulling insufficiency in cooling for the Air Condition and so on. It is also his case that insipte of repeated repairs by the 3rd opposite party, the defects were not cured and as the defects continued, he had no other alternative but to approach the Forum below for directions to the opposite parties to replace the engine and the A/c system along with cost of Rs. 25,000/- and costs. 3. Contesting the complaint the opposite parties filed separate versions. The first and second opposite parties filed a joint version wherein it was submitted that there was no manufacturing defect for the vehicle and that the complainant is not entitled to any replacement of the engine or the A/c system. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties in their version contested that the defects noted and brought to the notice of the 3rd opposite party were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and that as per the warranty conditions the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects only. It was also submitted that there were no manufacturing defects for the vehicle and the allegations of the complainant could not be true and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. The evidence consisted of the evidence of the complainant as PW1 and the Commissioner as PW2. On the side of the complainant Ext.P1 to P8 were marked. The Commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. For the opposite parties, the Manager was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 and D2 were marked. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum below has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to replace the engine and the A/c system. He has also attacked the order awarding compensation and costs. It is his case that the Commissioner’s report was not to be relied upon on the ground that the vehicle was not properly inspected by the Commissioner. He has also submitted before us that the complainant has not suffered any loss and hence the award of compensation was highly illegal and unsustainable. It is his further case that the Forum below did not appreciate the objection filed to the Commissioner’s report and also the statements made by the Commissioner in the cross examination. He placed much reliance on the deposition of PW2 the Commissioner and argued before us that the order as a whole has to be set aside in the light of the fact that there was no convincing evidence to prove that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has submitted that the complainant was put to untold miseries and hardships due to the defects in the vehicle. It is his further case that the person in charge of customer support has himself admitted that the complainant was put to much inconvenience and that Ext.P3 the letter sent by the authorized person is sufficient proof to hold that the vehicle had manufacturing defect. Supporting the order, the learned Counsel argued for the dismissal of the appeal with costs. 8. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent and also on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 10-01-2002 and that he was raising complaints regarding the vehicle on many occasions. The complainant has alleged that even after repeated repairs the vehicle was having the same old defects and that he had been put to much inconveniences on several occasions. It is also seen that the complainant has entrusted the vehicle to the opposite parties as is evidenced by the job cards produced as D1 series. We also find that the job cards would indicate the defects in the vehicle. But the appellants would argue that the said defects were rectified and they are only liable to rectify the defects as per the warranty conditions. From the job cards it can be found that the defects occurred during the warranty period itself. It is also noted that on one occasion the vehicle was retained by the opposite parties for a considerable period for rectification of the defects. The learned Counsel for the appellants would argue that the vehicle had been plied by the complainant for a considerable period and that the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to replace the engine and A/c system at this distance of time will only enrich the complainant which is unjustified. It is also the case of the appellants that the Commissioner has not inspected the vehicle properly. However, we find that the Commissioner is an experienced Mechanical Engineer and his report is believable to a certain extent. The letter dated 30-12-2002 will also indicate that the vehicle had problems and that the complainant was requested to bare with them for the inconvenience occurred. In the said circumstances, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not put to difficulties, mental agony and inconveniences cannot be supported. It is also to be found that at this distance of time an order directing the opposite parties to replace the engine and A/c system will only unduly enrich the complainant/respondent. In such facts and circumstances, we feel that it will be just and proper to award a reasonable amount as compensation rather than a direction to replace the engine and A/c system. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, we feel that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be just and proper to be awarded as compensation, which is liable to be paid by the opposite parties. The order directing to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- is sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications indicated above. Thereby the order dated 18-08-2005 in OP No. 266/03 in the file of CDRF, Kollam is modified to the extent that the opposite parties/appellants are liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with costs of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the above amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till the date of payment. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER Sr | 
