Orissa

Cuttak

CC/390/2023

Sucharita Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Director,Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

29 Nov 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK.

C.C.No.390/2023

Sucharita Pattanaik,

W/o: Sunil Pattanaik,

At:Plot No.B/1423,Sec-VI,CDA,

P.S:Markat Nagar,P.O:Abhinab Bidanasi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753014,

Permanent Resident of Plot No.7317,

Adimata Colony,

P.O.:Mancheswar Rly. Colony,

Bhubaneswar-751017.                                                            ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Tata Motors Ltd.,

Represented by It’s Manager Director,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, Andheri East,

82 Mahakali Caves Road,MIDC,Andheri East,

Mumbai-400093.

 

2.        The General Manager,

Customer Care,Tata Motors Ltd.,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, Andheri East,

82 Mahakali Caves Road,MIDC,Andheri East,

                Mumbai-400093.

 

3.       Gugnani Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

(Passenger Car Dealer),

Represented by it’s Managing Director,

Plot No.785,N.H-16,Pratapnagari,

               Cuttack-753011,Odisha.

 

4.        Mr. Prafulla Kumar Behera,

Service Manager,

Gugnani Auto Cars Pvt. Ltd.,

(Passenger Car Dealer),

Plot No.785,N.H-16,Pratapnagari,

                  Cuttack-753011,Odisha.

 

5.        Mr. Kaushik Kumar Pratihari,

Customer Care Manager,Bhubaneswar,

Tata Motors Ltd.,Baramunda Colony,

(In front of Baramunda Bus Stand),

                 Bhubaneswar-751003.

 

6.        Mr. Rajat Pundir,

Regional Service & Process & Marketing Manager,

Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Ltd.,

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, Andheri East,

82 Mahakali Caves Road,MIDC,Andheri East,

            Mumbai-400093.                                                            ...Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.12.2023

Date of Order:  29.11.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1,2,5 & 6:           Mr. Ruplal.Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4:                    None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Case of the complainant in short is that she purchased a Car manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd (O.P.No.1), model Tata Tiago XZ+ (Arizona Blue) from the O.P no.3 having Registration No.OD-05BK-1011 by exchanging the old Maruti WagonR car.  It is stated by the complainant that she made payment to the O.P no.3 on 21.10.2022 towards the cost of the car but the O.Ps delivered  the car to her only on 21.12.22.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps realised excess amount from her towards the cost and other services of car.  It is the further case of the complainant that on 9.6.23 her car was taken for servicing to the O.P no.3 and after two days of that servicing, her husband noticed some spots on the front Windshield glass as well as on the left window glasses of the car for which her husband intimated such facts to the O.P no.3 and sent him photographs of those spots.  On the instruction of the O.P no.3, the husband of the complainant took her car to the O.P no.3 on 16.06.2023 for removal of those spots which had appeared on her car but the staffs of the O.P no.3 did not attend properly to her husband for rectification of the defect of the Windshield glass of the car for which the defects could not be rectified.  The husband of the complainant again on 19.6.2023,28.6.2023 and 4.7.2023 had went to the O.P no.3 as per the instruction of the O.P No.3 for rectification of the defect which yielded no result.     It is stated by the complainant that the car was being driven by her husband single handedly.  Hence, the appearance of the spot on the Windshield glass within six months of purchase of the car is questionable.  The O.Ps no.4 & 5 inspected the glass of the car properly but could not ascertain to the reasons of appearance of the spot on the Windshield glass but only apprehended that some external materials may have fallen on the glass.  As the complainant’s grievance was not redressed, she vide her letter dt.14.7.23 drew the attention of the O.Ps no.1 & 3.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P no.6 while answering her letter dt.14.7.2023 vide his e.mail dt.20.7.23 to the complainant made some derogatory comments, upon her but she was relaxed as the O.P no.5 promised to communicate her resolution of the issue within two days.  The O.P no.4 after getting e.mail dt.14.7.23 as stated above also contacted the complainant over phone and assured to pick up the car from her residence and after the inspection they would deliver the car at her residence.  Accordingly, on 15.7.23, as per the instruction of the O.P no.4, one of the staff of the O.P no.3 Mr. Chandan picked up the car from the residence of the complainant without providing any receipt of the car although she and her husband were reluctant to allow him to take the car without any receipt.  However, the said Mr. Chandan picked up the car on 15.7.23 and did not return the same till 17.7.2023.    The husband of the complainant on 18.7.23 visited the showroom of the O.P no.3 and found that the car was not available in the stockyard of O.P no.3.  On enquiry, the O.P no.4 very cunningly avoided and promised to deliver the car on the same day at Bhubaneswar but did not deliver the same.  Finally, the O.P no.3 delivered the car on 20.7.23 but the defect still persisted.  The complainant also marked some scratches and stains in her vehicle.  The complainant immediately intimated such facts to the O.Ps on 20.7.2023 through e.mail.  The O.P no.4 replied to her e.mail  in his e.mail dt.20.7.23 and has stated that they have conducted inspection of the car and found that there were some external particles found on the Windshield glass of the car but he could not clarify that what particles were found on the Windshield of her car.  The O.Ps did not rectify the defect as appeared in the Windshield glass of the complainant’s car.  It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the car to attend medical for treating her daughter and ailing old parents-in-laws at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar but due to defect in the Windshield of her car she could not move to AIIMS and treated at Cuttack and thereby incurred huge medical expenses in treating at Cuttack.   It is also stated by the complainant that the detention of her car by the O.Ps without any receipt reveals high-handed autocrat action of the O.Ps.    It is stated by the complainant that the O.Ps are dealing with cars and they are well aware about the importance of the front Windshield glass and the hazards due to improper vision while driving the car but surprisingly none of the O.Ps have ever shown their concern towards the safety of the consumer/complainant.  The O.P no.1 in their brochure/Swagat Kit had claimed that the car in question is a 4-star safety rated Car and had highlighted the service promises and offerings as well as diagnostic expert service and quality service etc.  It is alleged by the complainant that such brochure issued by the O.Ps is just misleading advertisement and falsely describes the product and services by giving false guarantee to mislead the consumers.  The complainant had ventilated her grievance by approaching the Consumer Counselling Centre which yielded no result. The complainant being aggrieved by the activities and deficiency of service by the O.Ps, has come to this Commission with his petition with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps for replacement of the Windshield car with a new one.  She has further prayed for refund of the excess amount taken towards the extended warranty and under body cover policy with interest from the date of purchase of the products.  She has also prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards her mental torture and harassment besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of work and earning as well as claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards health complication, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for unauthorized detention and use of the car besides cost of litigation.

In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed some documents alongwith her complaint petition.

2.            Out of the six O.Ps, O.P no.3 & 4 did not appear and they were set exparte on 18.1.2024.  However, O.Ps no.1,2,5 & 6 have filed their joint written version.  It is stated by them that the relation between them with the O.P no.3 is on principal-to-principal basis.  So far as the quality potency of the car in question, it is stated by them that the car is manufactured by them and marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (in short ARAI).  All the vehicles manufactured at the plant of these O.Ps are thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality cheques and test drive by the Quality Assurance Department before despatching those to the market.  In the instant case, the complainant failed to understand that the issues complained by her is arising as because she wants that the Windshield of the car be replaced under warranty which was not agreed as because Asahl India Glass Ltd. the Vendor Company who had supplied the glass in their report has stated that due to some external material substance which is appearing on the windshield cannot be removed and for reasons replacement of the Windshield cannot be carried out under the warranty.  It is stated by them that some spots are available in the side door glasses also, so there is no issue in the Windshield glass but because of external reasons the spots occurred in the Windshield glass. Hence it is stated by them that the specific service promised by them stating that Diagnostic Quick Repair, Speed-O-Service, Door Step Service etc, has no relevance to the instant case.  The claim for replacement of the Windshield glass under warranty was rejected on 20^th July,2023 and the complainant was asked to get the Windshield replaced on paid basis but she did not agree and continued to raise her grievance which has no relevance in the instant case.  It is stated by the O.Ps that issues regarding discrepancy in the Tax Invoice as has been raised, billing is to be answered by the O.P No.3 as they are the manufacturer but not the seller of the car.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the allegation to the effect that the car was retained for 7 days without job card is not within their knowledge.   Such allegation is denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.    It is stated by them that there was no negligence on the part of O.P No.3 till 9.6.2023.  But on 12.6.2023 the spot marks appeared on the Windshield and there is every possibility that the spot marks occurred due to some external reason and only the complainant and her husband was aware about the same.  It is disputed by the O.Ps that O.P No.6 had made derogatory comment upon the complainant while sending e.mail.  The complainant has mis-interpreted such mail and has stated so which has no relevance in the present case as because Windshield under warranty was not replaced by them.  It is stated by them that they were unaware about whether any job card was opened or not when the car was handed over to the O.P No.3 for removal of spot on the windshield but again has stated that if no work is carried out in the car there is no requirement of opening the job card.   In the present case Windshield got affected due to action/inaction of the complainant and warranty does not cover such damage.  The O.Ps no.3 & 4 tried to find out ways and means to help the complainant by removing spots on the windshield  since that car was only of six months old at that time. It is denied by the answering O.Ps that Windshield glass of the car is having any inherent defect.   It is urged that in the absence of expert report, it cannot be said that there was defect in the Windshield glass of the car.  Hence the answering O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the case against them with cost.

3.            Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.Ps no.1,2,5 & 6, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.            Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.           Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from both sides as well as from the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the main dispute is as regards to appearance of spots on the windshield of the car.  It is admitted by the O.Ps no.1 to 5 & 6 that spots on the windshield car has appeared within six months of purchasing  the car.  The answering O.Ps by relying the reports of their Glass Vendor namely, A. Sahl India Glass Ltd. has stated that there is no manufacturing defect in the car.  It is alleged by the O.Ps that due to some external reason, the spot on the windshield has appeared and the O.Ps had verified and tested those spots but could not come to a definite conclusion the reason of the spot which had appeared on the windshield of the car.  The windshield is a vital part of the car while driving the car.  The spots had appeared within six months from the date of purchasing the car.  Besides, it is alleged by the complainant that O.Ps no.3 & 4 had insured the body of the car.  The answering O.Ps also have not disputed whether the windshield comes under the warranty or not.  The answering O.Ps also could not show any act of commission or omission on the part of the complainant or her husband which would reveal that due to such actions the spots had appeared on the windshield of the car.    The O.Ps have not examined their Glass Vendor, who had given his opinion that there is no inherent defect in the Windshield.  Hence, his opinion cannot be relied upon. It reveals from the photographs of windshield filed by the complainant that safe driving cannot be undertaken due to appearance of spots.  The complainant had contacted and pursued the O.Ps on many occasions for removal of those defects but they could not remove the same. Hence, the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service by not replacing the windshield of the car.   It is also alleged by the complainant that the O.P No.3 had not given job card while receiving the car on 15.7.2023 for removal of spots on the windshield.  It is also alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps did not remove the defect as appeared on the windshield of the car.  As regards to the allegations of scratches and stains appeared in the body while handing over the car for removal of spots on the windshield, it reveals from the e.mail dt.24.7.2023 of the answering O.Ps that  they were aware about the allegations of scratches made on the body of the car.  The allegation of the O.Ps to the effect that due to non-availability of the complainant their visit for checking the scratches of the car has no basis as no documentary evidence is available in that respect.  The O.Ps did not take any steps for checking and removing  the scratches on the car which had occurred due to negligence of the O.Ps.  The O.P No.3 & 4 neither appeared nor filed their respective written versions as such they were set exparte.  Hence the allegations against them as made by the complainant are deemed to be true.  It is held that the O.Ps no.3 & 4  without issuing job cards had retained the car for five days to rectify the defects of the Windshield of the car but they have misused the car of the complainant for which scratches have been made on the body of the car.  The O.Ps no.1,2,5 & 6 have supported to such actions of the O.P No.3 & 4 to some extent by stating that job card is not issued in all the occasions although the vehicle was retained for five days for removal of spots on the Windshield.  In view of the findings and observations made above, it is held that the O.Ps have committed deficiency of service as well as have practised unfair trade.

Issues no.i & iii.

In view of the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as made by her.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                       ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against O.Ps no.1 ,2,5 & 6 and exparte against O.Ps no.3 & 4.  The O.Ps are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case and they are directed to remove the spots on the windshield or replace the same by a new one of the complainant’s car  free of cost as well as to remove the spots and stains of the car with immediate effect.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of   November,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member

 

                                                                                           Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                     President