Complainantby filing this complaint has alleged that for the purpose of her earning of her livilehood she purchased one TATA SUMO Vehicle from op no.1 Lexus Motors Ltd. by paying Rs. 8 lakhs taking bank loan from UBI, Broad Street Branch, and the complainant received the said vehicle named Grande MKII having Registration No.WB-19-TG-8986 on 21.10.2010.

          On 26.10.2010 it was found that aforesaid vehicle faced several problems and disturbances and it was not running properly and various defects were detected and at the same time engine was not functioning properly, duplicate key was not given, chasis was found with some crack.  So, complainant contacted with the officers of Lexus Motors Ltd on 27.10.2010 and she was advised to talk with Mr. H.S. Dasgupta on 03.11.2010 and H.S. Dasgupta was available and he advised to the complainant to deliver the vehicle at Lexus Motors Office and on 06.12.2010 and so the said defective vehicle was delivered to Lexus Motors Ltd. Office and Mr. H.S. Dasgupta informed Mr. SanjeevGhosh that there is a problem of electronic Horn in the vehicle and the Horn was blowing continuously in standing condition causing from the internal fault of the engine fitted in the vehicle.

          Thereafter it was repaired by the op by placing some parts and subsequently finding no other alternative on 03.01.2011 complainant wrote a letter to the Regional Manager (East), TATA Motors Ltd. at the office at 15, Park Street, Kolkata with a request to replace the defective vehicle with a new one.

          In fact the defective vehicle was deposited eight times for servicing at the service center at Budge Budge, South 24 Pgs. On several dates in between the period from 26.10.2010 to 13.02.2011 and during that period on different occasions total for about 29 days it was detained for repairing.

          Practically complainant did not get any reply from the op.  Thereafter complainant along with Senior Manager, SantanuBikashBhadur of UBI, Broad Street Branch visited Lexus Motors office, but the officer Mr. Dasgupta told them that they have nothing to do and advised to take necessary legal action and finding no other alternative complainant issued one legal notice on 20.12.2011 through her Ld. Advocate to the ops by registered letter with A/D but no response was received from the op.  Thereafter a reminder was also made by the complainant with Speed Post on 21.02.2012 for replacing the defective vehicle to the complainant but that was also unanswered.  So, in the circumstances, complainant without getting any proper service and for unfair trade practice filed this case for proper relief.

          Against that op no.1 Lexus Motors Ltd. by filing written statement submitted that complainant is not the consumer and present complaint is not maintainable and it is frivolous, vexatious and harassing and denied all allegations.

          Further it is submitted on behalf of the Lexus Motors Ltd. op no.1 that on 06.12.2010 the vehicle was reported to the workshop op no.1for facing some problemsand defective horn and the said problem was carefully checked up by the engineers of the op and vehicle was referred to H.S. Dasgupta to SanjeevGhosh and as per advise the problem was redressed and delivered to the customer and it is further submitted that from the job card itself of the workshop of the op no.1 it would be found that in all occasion right from the period 26.10.2010 to 09.12.2010 subject vehicle was reported for some minor problems and free service as per warranty norms of the vehicle was carefully checked by the service engineer of the workshop and made the vehicle trouble free and roadworthy and delivered the vehicle to the complainant with complainant’s utmost satisfaction after getting satisfactory note signed by her.  So, in such a manner op rendered his best service to its customers as per warranty norms and fact remains the vehicle was purchased on 21.10.2010 but it is stated by the complainant that the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repair on 03.01.2010 and 13.02.2010 which is completely false and misleading. 

          Further it is submitted that there is no technical defect or manufacturing defect and there is no such document to show that there is any manufacturing defect.  Moreover, the vehicle was under warranty norms as it was given by the manufacturing concerned and as per warranty contract, the complainant availed of warranty facility from the workshop of op no.1 and vehicle was free from all problems.  But in spite of that complainant filed this instant complaint with frivolous allegation, so, the entire complaint should be dismissed.

          But anyway the op no.2 has not appeared in this case to contest.  In the above circumstances, the case was heard finally after taking evidence, materials from both the sides and thereafter the case is heard finally after hearing the argument of both sides.

Decision with reasons

          On indepth study of the entire complaint including the written version and also relying upon the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also on proper assessment of the documents as filed by the parties it is clear that complainant before purchasing this present vehicle took quotation from Lexus Motors Ltd. on 03.09.2010 and on 22.09.2010 Lexus Motors Ltd. received Rs.5,000/- as advance for purchase of Grande MKII having Registration No.WB-19-TG-8986 on 21.10.2010 and on 18.10.2010 Lexus Motors Ltd. received Rs. 8,00,000/- by Demand Draft No.116792 drawn by UBI, Broad Street Branch.  So, it is clear that complainant purchased the said vehicle from the Lexus Motors Ltd. through Bank Aid.  Fact remains till to date 2^nd Key of the vehicle was not handed over by the Lexus Motors.  It is proved beyond any manner of doubt and that is due which is evident from the receipt dated 21.10.2010.  No doubt it was a new vehicle and fact remains the vehicle was placed for checking and repairing of different dates and further from the letter of H.S. Dasgupta to SanjeevGhosh it is clear that the vehicle faced trouble in respect of continuous blowing of Horn in standing condition and it was electrical system problem that was no doubt removed after proper repairing and replacing.

          Further from the job card dated 11.10.2010 it is found that on that date vacuuming and washing were made, free services were given and standard check was made and from job card dated 23.12.2010 it is found that compressor was replaced on and off switch was replaced as switch was not working and also vehicle speed sensor was replaced.  Thereafter on 03.01.2011 Radio Music System was repaired, Reverse Lamp, Wipper Blade, Side View Mirror, Fog Lamp etc were checked and repaired.  On 15.02.2011 left side glass as it was found broken.  But no other document is produced by the complainant to show that there was any manufacturing defect.  But fact remains on several occasions the vehicle was placed before the service center of the Lexus Motors Ltd. for different reasons and Lexus Motors Ltd. attended the complainant.  So, now question whether there was any manufacturing defect or not and in this regard Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that on the date of delivery of the vehicle inspection and checking report of the manufacturer was not supplied.  But it is mandatory on the part of the dealer to handover such a certificate of the manufacturer along with vehicle.  The complainant has not got the same as yet along with the 2^nd key.  Truth is that 2^nd key has not yet been handed over by the Lexus Motors Ltd. and that is no doubt unfortunate in view of the fact that Lexus Motors Ltd. has not denied that fact in the written version and regarding non-submitting the inspection and checking report of the manufacturer in respect of the present vehicle is also not supplied by the op and fact remains that after purchase on several occasions complainant faced several problems within the period from 26.10.2010 to 15.02.2011 and truth is that in first occasion i.e. in between the period 26.10.2010 to 04.11.2010 the vehicle was in the op’s servicing center and on 2^nd occasion i.e. in between the period 03.11.2010 to 06.11.2010 for 4 days it was in the servicing center and in such a manner from 26.10.2010 to 15.11.2010 the vehicle was placed before the op’s service center in all 8 times and no doubt there were some problem what had been faced by the complainant even after purchasing the vehicle bearing No.WB-19-TG-8986 on 21.10.2010 from Lexus Motors Ltd.  But now on behalf of op there is no such certificate granted by the op in favour of the complainant that there is no manufacturing defect by showing such certificate issued by the TATA Motors.  So, no doubt we are confirmed that Lexus Motors Ltd. sold this vehicle without any certificate issued by the Manufacturer i.e. inspection and checking report that the vehicle was free from all defects.

          At the same time Lexus Motors Ltd. also did not submit any report before this Forum after checking vehicle finally that there was no manufacturing defect or there was no such defect and it is road able and it is run by the complainant.  So, considering that fact we are convinced that there is sufficient ground to file this complaint for non-delivery of the 2^nd key and another certificate granted by the manufacturer that the vehicle is free from all defects.  But that has not been submitted by the complainant.  It simply proves that vehicle was facing some problems and it has become defective and regarding problem the complainant is facing much problem and for which she is unable to pay the Bank loan regularly and no doubt op has failed to prove by any cogent document that the vehicle is still free from all trouble and now it is trouble free vehicle.  So, in the circumstances, we have gathered that the service on the part of the op’s is no doubt insufficient and practically op Lexus Motors Ltd. sold the same to the complainant without any certificate of the manufacturer regarding the inspection and checking report by the Motor technical engineers of the TATA Motors.  But that is must.

          In the above circumstances, no doubt the ops are bound to check up the vehicle and place the car before the motor technical engineers of the TATA Motors after proper checking of the vehicle and to hand over such certificate of the TATA Motors the manufacturer that the vehicle is free from all troubles or problems and at the same time op shall have to hand over the 2^nd key and it is mandatory on the part of the op to hand over it at the time of selling the vehicle to the complainant.  But that had not been done.  So, no doubt op Lexus Motors Ltd. is negligent and deficient in rendering services to the complainant.

          In the above circumstances, we are allowing this complaint with such direction to the op to give such proper relief and redress as per direction of this Forum.

          Thus the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against op no.1 and exparte against op no.2 without any cost.

          Op no.1 is hereby directed to hand over a certificate (inspected and checked report of the motor technical engineers) of the manufacturer TATA Motors in respect of present vehicle bearing No.WB-19-TG-8986 after taking the said vehicle from the possession of the complainant and same shall be examined in presence of the complainant at per her satisfaction and handed over that certificate of the manufacturer to the complainant what had not been given at the time of selling to the complainant and also to hand over the 2^nd key to the complainant within one month from the date of this order and if op no.1 fails to comply the same in that case op no.1 shall have to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and if op no.1 fails to do that within the stipulated period forviolating the order of this Forum in that case op no.1 shall have to pay punitive damages also for adopting unfair trade practice for a sum of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited to this Forum.

          Op no.2 TATA Motors is hereby directed to comply the order as per direction of this order giving all sort of help to the op no.1 and in this regard op nos. 1 & 2 shall jointly comply the order failing which penal action shall be imposed against them and for which further penalty of Rs.10,000/- each shall be imposed against each of the op.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 shall follow the order very strictly otherwise penal action shall be taken against them.