1) Subhendu Pathak,
36C, Ballygunge Circular Road,
Flat No.1/8, (1st Floor), Kolkata-19. Complainant
Versus
1) Lexus Motors Ltd.,
209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-17.
2) Lexus Motors Ltd. (Workshop),
40, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Rampur, Kolkata-41.
3) Tata Motors,
Appeejay House, 5th Floor, block-A,
15, Park Street, Kolkata-19.
4) Tata Motors,
Marketing & Customer Support Passenger
Car Business Unit, One Forbes, 5th Floor,
Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400023. Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 15 Dated 06-01-2014.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a new Tata Indigo Manza – Q – JET Aura Diesel car (product code 28744225AGSR) from o.p. no.1 on 31.8.10 amounting to Rs.7,09,013/- (including warranty charge, registration charge and logistic charges). The car was delivered on 22.9.10. The complainant took a car loan from SBI of Rs.2,50,000/-. From the first day the car was not running properly. After taking delivery the car faced break down seven times within a period from 4.4.11 to 26.8.12 and for that reason complainant faced lot of problems. Every time the complainant contacted the Tata Motors Service Centre and accordingly they took the car and returned the vehicle after repairing. The complainant availed of the free services which was given by Tata Motors Ltd. The complainant had already paid the second year insurance premium of Rs.15,456/-. The complainant has informed the o.p. nos.3 and 4 regarding the problems of the car in question but neither did they bother nor they took any proper steps to solve the problem of the car in question. Therefore the complainant approached Consumer Affairs Department Govt. of West Bengal for redressal, but on the date of meeting which was arranged by the said office none appeared on behalf of o.ps. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 & 2 and o.p. nos.3 & 4 filed separate w/v.
In their w/v o.p. nos.1 & 2 denied all material allegations interalia stated that some allegations made by complainant are matters of record. O.p. nos.1 & 2 also argued that the exact dates of break down were not mentioned and it is a concocted story. When the vehicle in question was taken to the work shop of o.p. no.2 the same has been attended by the service engineers of the said work shop very carefully and they removed defects and also they rendered free services as per warranty norms of Tata Motors Ltd. O.p. nos.1 & 2 also alleged that the said vehicle was not driven properly as per manufacturer’s instruction provided in warranty norms. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with the repairing service. So the case is harassing, not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed with cost.
In their w/v o.p. nos.3 & 4 also denied all material allegations against them except those which are specifically admitted in their w/v. They have admitted that the cars and vehicles manufactured at the plant of o.p. no.1 goes for selling after thorough inspection, quality check and test driving. O.p. nos.3 & 4 have more than 800 work shops and they provide assistance to the customers in all parts of India round the clock. They have alleged that the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual. They gave free services to the complainant as per recommended service schedule. They have also alleged that on 2.8.12 the vehicle met with an accident and for that reason the door was repaired and the painting work was carried out. The car faced break down problem due to misuse, negligence, improper and inadequate maintenance etc. The complainant has filed the complaint without any basis. Therefore the case should be dismissed with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant bought the car in question on 31.8.10 from o.p. no.1 and the same was delivered on 22.9.10. It is also admitted fact that complainant availed of three free services given by TATA Motors Ltd. The complainant could not avail of the 4th free service on 31.8.12 as the car was not running then. During the tenure from 4.4.11 to 26.8.12 the car faced break down problem seven times. So it is definite that there is some problem in the car in question and for which the complainant faced mental agony. O.ps. alleged that the car faced an accident, but complainant argued that the car faced accident by o.p. company’s personnel. O.ps. did not charge any amount to give service through there was an accident. But whether the accident was occurred due to the latches of the complainant or due to the negligent driving by o.p. company’s personnel, it is not proved by either side. We are in the view that when a car faces several break down problems in a short period the complainant faced tremendous harassment. It is obvious that neither of the o.ps. tried to solve his problem by giving proper assistance. Therefore, the complainant has substantiated his case and as such, he is entitled to get relief u/s 14 of C.P. Act, 1986.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against all o.ps. with cost. O.p. nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to refund the complainant a sum of Rs.7,09,013/- (Rupees seven lakhs nine thousand thirteen) only as the purchased price of the car in question. O.p. nos.1 & 2 and o.p. nos.3 & 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only as compensation for harassment and mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant shall return the car in question to o.p. nos.3 and 4 within 15 days from the date of realization of the aforesaid amount.
