Order No.  18  dt.  21/12/2016

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased one Tata Sumo Gold GX vehicle by taking loan from the bank. After completion of all the formalities the vehicle was delivered on 20.2.12. At the time of delivery the vehicle was not fitted with some accessories and o.p. no.1 promised to deliver the same at the time of 1^st servicing. The vehicle met with an accident by the staff of o.p. no.2 while it was placed for servicing. After purchase the complainant realized that the engine fitted in the car was not performing properly. The said fact was brought to the notice of o.p. no.1. The complainant found that the break was not properly functioning and the vehicle was consuming huge consumption of fuel. In spite of bringing those facts to the notice of o.p. no.1 no action was taken. Because of deficiency in service the complainant filed this case praying for replacement of the car and compensation of Rs.1 lakh and for other reliefs.  

            The o.p. nos.1 and 2 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complaint petition is barred by limitation. The car was purchased on 31.1.12 and warranty norms period expired after 24 months from the date of purchase. The complaint petition was filed after 2 years from the date of purchase and accordingly, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case. It was stated that whenever the vehicle was under warranty norms and the complainant reported to the workshop and pointed out the defects those were removed as per the warranty norms and delivered the vehicle on full satisfaction of the complainant. It was stated that the accident occurred while the vehicle was in the custody of the complainant and was placed for repairing which was done by o.ps. in utmost satisfaction of the complainant and delivered the vehicle to him who expressed satisfaction. So far as the engine oil consumption was concerned the same was rectified. The complainant in order to get advantage by filing this case and for that purpose manufactured a case against the o.ps. the warranty contract granted by the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd. in respect of the said car. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the vehicle had any manufacturing defect.
2. Whether the vehicle of the complainant was repaired and proper servicing was done by o.ps. during the warranty period.
3.  Was there any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons:-

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for complainant argued that the complainant purchased the vehicle from o.p. no.1 and at the time of purchasing the vehicle some accessories were not provided. With the running of the vehicle the complainant found that the vehicle was not properly functioning, sometimes it was found that the break was not functioning, there was huge consumption of engine oil and other defects were also noticed. Those defects were brought to the notice of o.ps. but no effective step was taken by o.ps. for which the complainant had to file this case praying for replacement of the vehicle and also for other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the case was filed after the period of limitation. The complainant whenever brought to the notice of o.ps. regarding the defects faced by him during warranty period those were rectified and the complainant put his signature on the documents showing that he was fully satisfied regarding the service rendered by o.ps. The complainant has claimed that the vehicle had manufacturing defect but the manufacturer i.e. Tata Motors Ltd. has not been made a party in this case. Bereft of the said fact the o.ps. rendered services to the complainant in respect of the said vehicle during the period of warranty and the vehicle ran for 9000 kms. thereafter the complainant raised this plea that the vehicle had manufacturing defect which is not at all believable. In order to make out a false against the o.ps. the complainant manufactured the story that no service was rendered by o.ps. for which the complainant illegally sought for replacement of the vehicle.  

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence on record it is well established that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 31.1.12 and the warranty period expired after 24 months. During the said period the complainant visited the service centre of o.p. no.1 and on all occasions the services were rendered by o.p. no.1. The complainant claimed that since the date of purchasing the vehicle had manufacturing defect in order to get relief for replacement of the vehicle on the ground of the manufacturing defect the company which manufactured the car ought to have been made party in this case. Here in this case Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. has not been made a party in this case. The complainant admitted that the vehicle ran for more than 9000 kms. if that be so, how the fact of manufacturing defect will arise. It is not believable to substantiate the said allegation of the complainant. Considering all these aspects we hold that the complainant failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service or the vehicle had any manufacturing defect particularly when the complainant failed to prove before this Forum to substantiate his claim that the vehicle had manufacturing defect at least the complainant could have sought for appointment of an expert to ascertain the allegation that the vehicle had any manufacturing defect since the date of purchase, but instead of taking any effective step the complainant made allegation against the o.ps. that the vehicle had manufacturing defect which has got no substance to be entertained. Accordingly we hold that the case is to be dismissed and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.182/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.