Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

cc/38/2020

Sukhvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahadev Moters-Bhiwani, authorised dealership/agency Tata Motors,opposite - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manjeet Chahar

29 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                              

                                                                Complaint No.: 38 of 2020.

                                                               Date of Instt:  09.06.2020.

                                                                Date of Order: 29.01.2024  

Sukhvir son of Shri Banwari Lal, aged about 43 years, village Gokal, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.                                                                                                          ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Mahadev Motors-Bhiwani, authorized dealership/agency Tata Motors, Opposite-Sanjeet Filling Station, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, through its Manager.
2. Mahadev Motors-Charkhi Dadri, Sub-agency/dealership  under Mahadev Motors, Bhiwani and Tata Motors Loharu Road, Loharu Bhiwani Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, through its Manager/In-charge.
3. Tata Motors Limited, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093, through its Managing Director.
4. Apollo Tyres, Apollo House, 7 Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurugram-122001, through its Managing Director

 

…...Respondents.

                                                COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER                                         PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -    Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:        Shri Ravinder Yadav, Adv. for the complainant.  

Shri Rajpal Verma, Advocate for the OP No.3.

OP No.1,2&4 already ex parte.

                  

ORDER

1.                The case of the complainant in brief, is that he  had purchased a Tata Tiago  Car from OP no.1 bearing engine number RevTrn02FRYK, Chasis No. MAT626281JKC51804 against payment of ex show room price of Rs. 5,19,629/- vide delivery challan bearing serial number 1500 dated 27.06.2018. The vehicle was registered with appropriate authority with number HR19N5464. The OP no.1 to 3 provided unconditional warranty upon the vehicle and its fitments to complainant including its tyre and tubes manufactured and supplied by OP no.4. It is alleged that after few months of purchase in June 2019, he noticed damage in one of the tyres of the car and immediately contacted OP no.1&2. The OP no.1&2 inspected the vehicle and the damaged part through experts and admitted that the part of the product i.e. the tyre is within gurantee period and is showing  signs as if inferior product has been sold as fitment of the vehicle and assured timely services of replacing the damaged product part within one week positively. It is further alleged that after one week he contacted the OP no.1&2 but was surprised to see that there was no proceedings towards the replacement of the damaged part. Lastly in the month of December 2019 Mr. Sunil employee of the OP no.1&2 took up the complaint with OP no.4 and the damaged product part was accepted by OP no.4 vide complaint ref no. CELLMM89 dated 30.12.2009. The OP no.4 also admitted their fault in supplying faulty part/product and allowed replacement in favour of Mr. Sunil, authorized on behalf of OP no.1 to 3 through tyre care centre, Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri against chargeable amount of Rs.1256/- but he did not get the tyre replaced from tyre centre of OP no.4 owing to the negligent and careless attitude fully attributable upon the OP no.1 to 3. Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant prayed for directions against the OPs to replace the defective tyre of complainant and to pay compensation account of mental agony, harassment, financial loss etc and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                 OPs have failed to appear or attend hearings/proceedings in this Commission despite serving notices.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.08.2020. However, Ld. Counsel for OP no.3 filed an application for setting aside the exparte order dt. 04.08.2020. Counsel for the complainant made “no objection” on the application itself. In view of the “no objection” the exparte order dt. 04.08.2020 was set aside against OP no.3 vide order dt. 23.08.2021.

 3.                Respondent No.3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the OP No.3 who is Manufacture Company of the TATA vehicles. It is submitted that the tyre manufactured by OP no.4. i.e Apollo Tyres, therefore, if at all there is any grievance of the complainant, the same could be redressed by OP no.1,2&4 and the answering respondents  has no role to play. Hence, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                The Ld. counsel for the complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2022

5.                On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the OP no.3 has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on dated 13.03.2023. 

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

7.                It has been observed that defect in tyre has been accepted in Technical Inspection Report  dt. 30.12.2019 (Ex.C2) of OP no.4, who had agreed for replacement of the tyre. It is true that vehicles are manufactured by OP no.3 and marketed and sold by the agents of OP no.3, in this case OP no.1&2 who marketed the sale of vehicle as sales agent of OP no.3 and also they are authorized to provide after sales services. In this complaint, there has been deficiency in service on the part of all OPs.

OP no.1&2 - for deficiency in providing after sale services.

OP no.3- for providing defective tyre and non coordinating for removal of deficiency despite acceptance of fault of OP no.4

OP no.4 – for not replacing the tyre free of cost within guarantee period  despite submission of Technical Inspection Report by its  team, which shows defect in tyre. Hence all OPs are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency in service. The complaint mainly pertains to tyre provided by OP no.4 who had agreed to replace the same but failed to replace. Further,

 neither OP no.2 nor OP no.3 has coordinated/provided services to replace the same.  Hence, it is directed as under:-

1. OP no.4 replace the tyre without charging any cost and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.
2. OP no.3 to pay the compensation for Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
3. OP no.1&2 (jointly and severally) pay Rs.5,000/- as penalty for deficiency in providing after sale  service and  wasting time of this Commission, to be deposited in the account in the name of “LEGAL AID ACCOUNT OF THE STATE COMMISSION, bearing Account No.38283037741 having IFS Code SBIIN0050969, Branch Code 50969, with State Bank of India, Sector 4, Panchkula and deposit the receipt with this Commission.

8. The OPs are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: 29.01.2024.