Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/16

Awedhesh Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kraft Auto Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jan 2019

ORDER

Complainant Awdhesh pd. Verma has filed this case for an order to replace his car and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

2          The Case of the complainant is that he purchased a car, Model Zest XT, on payment of Rs. 7,72,193/- including the insurance charges reg. fee, taxes etc. the reg. no. of the vehicle is JH-09Y-7275.

            The Car developed some defects for the first time on 28-04-2015 which was removed by the O.P. M/s Kraft Auto. but during two years of periods the defects were detected fifty times in service station of the company TATA Motors Ltd. and the same were removed.  But the defect removal was not proper. Lastly on 17-01-2017 the complainant went to service station for defect of sound in engine, leakage in A.C. and defects of gate lock, head light, indicator light and defect in horn, even bonnet was rusted from inside. The car was taken to the service station but it was returned without removing the defects and O.P. told the complainant to bear cost of half of the expenditure and the rest amount will be paid by the insurance co. then the complainant made complaint on 23-11-2016 and 29-11-2019. After that M/s Kraft Auto called the complainant to change the bonnet and repair of the gate but the complainant refused to bring the car to the service centre, thinking only to be harassed for defects every month. Hence this case is filed.

3          The complainant has filed following documents in support

            Anx-1- Copy of Driving license

            Anx-2- Copy of Aadhar Card

            Anx-3 to 3/6 Copies of insurance Policy documents

            Anx-4- Copy of Registration
            Anx-5-  Copy of first Delivery note

            Anx-6- Copy of Legal Notice of O.P.

            Anx-7-  Copy of letter dt. 28-11-2016 for return of vehicle to O.Ps.

            Anx 8 to 8/11-         Photos of vehicle.

            Anx 9 Copy of AMC invoice.

4          O.P. No.1 M/S Kraft Auto Pvt. Ltd. has not appeared and ex parte proceeding has been initiated accordingly

            O.P. No. 2& O.P. No.3 are the TATA Motors Ltd. who appeared and filed W.S. it is stated that this complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the material facts. The purchased car has been used by the complainant extensively for commercial activity, therefore, he is not a consumer.  Complainant has not produced records for regular servicing of the car, the warranty is the limited to repair or replace free of charge of the parts which are defective within the warranty period. It is also submitted that no expert opinion filed by the complainant regarding the problem, therefore the complainant failed  to prove the defects. Therefore the onus lies on the complainant to prove the defects. It is also submitted that the relation between TATA Motors and Kraft Auto is on principal to principal basis, therefore this O.P. cannot be held liable for any act and omission for Kraft Auto. It is submitted that the obligation of the O.P. is limited to terms and condition of the warranty and therefore this case is filed only for harassment of the O.P.  for unlawful gain. And the Complainant is liable to be dismissed.

FINDINGS

5          Perused the record and the W.S. filed by O.P. M/S TATA Motors Ltd., the manufacturer of the vehicle. As the complainant has purchased the vehicle on payment of Rs.7,72,193/- including fees for registration, insurance and other taxes etc, we hold that he is a consumer and dispute is a consumer dispute.

6          The purchase of the vehicle is not disputed but the grievance of the complainant is regarding services and other defects in the vehicle for which the complainant was harassed mentally  and physically.

            It is alleaged by the complainant that for the first time the vehicle had developed some problem on 28-04-2015  which was corrected by the authorized service centre of the company TATA Motors. However within two years of span, the complainant had to visit the service centre fifty times for removal of defects. On 17-01-2017 the vehicle developed noise in the engine, leakage of A.C. pipe link, defects in gate and rusting inside the bonnet. Complainant ask the O.P. No.1 for defects but O.P. No. 1 asked to pay 50% of the cost and rest of the 50% would be paid by the insurance company. But the complainant did not go and accept the proposal of the O.P. No.1 and requested to change the vehicle to which the O.P. did not oblige.

7          The Vehicle was purchased for personal use and no evidence is available to justify the claim of the O.P. that the vehicle was use for commercial purpose. Therefore, this contention of the O.P. cannot be accepted. The vehicle was well within limitation of the annual maintenance contract till 11-05-2018 (Anx-9) and denial by the O.P. No.1 was not justified. At the same time complainant has also erred for not producing the vehicle at the service centre for removal of the defects. The vehicle was new one as such no rusting should have been seen inside the bonnet for which the complainant has filed Anx-8 series (Photographs) to justify this claim. It is also fact that the intermittent defects of the A.C. gate problem etc. within the two years of use of the vehicle shows some type of manufacturing defects for which the manufacturer TATA Motors is liable and this is a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. By saying only “principal to principal” basis by TATA Motors, the manufacturer cannot be absolved of the liability for the defects in the vehicle apart from the authorized dealer M/S Kraft Auto.

8          Thus, we allow the claim of the complainant and direct M/S TATA Motors to pay Rs.4,08,758/-(Four Lac Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Eight Only) which is the value of the vehicle after deducting the 40% of the depreciation (which is calculated from IDV Rs. 6,81,262 – Rs. 2,72,504 = Rs 4,08,758/-) with interest of 6% per annum from the date of order till a realization and take back the said vehicle from the complainant.

            The O.P. TATA Motors is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) as a compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/-(Five Thousand) as a litigation cost to the complainant. Within 60 days of the order.