West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/15/34

Syed Md Ellias - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sanjit Kr Acharya

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

Smt. Sukla Sengupta .President.

            This is a case filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 as amended update.

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Syed Md Ellias is a resident of Suri Sonatorpara, P.O and P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum.

            The complainant has filed this case against the OP members who run their business within the jurisdiction of this Commission/Forum.

            During pendency of this case the name of the OP No. 2 has been expunged from the cause title of the petition of complaint as per prayer of the complainant vide order No. 19 dated 23/06/2016.

            It is stated in the petition of complaint that on 30/06/2014 the complainant purchased one TATA ACEDICOR (BsIII) from OP No. 2 with the financial assistance of OP No. 4.

            It is the case of the complaint that the OP No. 1 is a manufacturer of the aforesaid vehicle and the OP No. 3 is the authorized service station of the OP No. 1. So the complainant is a Consumer and the opposite parties are the service providers.

            It is the further case of the complainant that after one month of the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle even within the warranty period it was found that there was starting problem of the vehicle. Then the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP No. 2 for restoration but after examination properly the OP No. 2 could bot remove the problem of the vehicle and refer the complainant to the OP No. 3 who is/was

 

 

the authorized service station of OP No. 1. Thereafter on 02/09/2014 the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP members.

            It is alleged that the OP No. 3 being the authorize service station of the OP No. 1 took Rs. 28,000/- for restoration of the vehicle even it was within the warranty period which amounts to unfair trade practice on the pass of OP No. 3.

            It is also alleged that the OP No. 3 kept the vehicle in idle condition for a period of long 143 days without taking any step for restoration.

            As a result the complainant could not be able to repay the installment of the vehicle to the OP No. 4 as he could not ply the vehicle during that 143 days.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the vehicle in question is the only source of income to maintain his livelihood.

            It is claimed by the complainant that the OP members caused his harassment, mental pain and agony by their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as they did not hand over the vehicle to the complainant in time by removing it’s defect.

            Hence this petition of complaint is filed by the complainant with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 28,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. since 24/01/2015 till realization, and with a prayer to direct the OP members to pay compensation of 700/- per dt. from 02/09/2014 to 24/01/2015 along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and other relief or reliefs.

            The OP No. 1, 3 and 4 have contested the petition of complaint by filing separate written version denying all the material allegations levelled against them.

            During pendency of the case the name of the OP No. 2 has been expunged from the cause title of the petition of complaint as per prayer of the complainant.

            It is the case of the OP No. 1 that the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The OP No. 1 further stated in it’s written version that the petition of complaint is vague, baseless and the same has been filed with malafide intension. It is the OP No. 1’s case that neither any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle in question nor has any deficiency of service been proved.

            It is further stated by the OP No. 1 in his written version that the complainant failed to prove by any documentary evidence that the vehicle in question is being made for his livelihood. Moreover or 02/09/2014 after covering a distance of 3647 Kms. the customer reported with vehicle at M/S Lakshmi Motor, Suri works with the complaint of starting problem. The start service center informed the complainant but he didn’t arrive. The service engineer tried to start the vehicle but he failed. Then he checked the fuel lines for any punch or cracks but it was okay.

           

 

 

It is further stated by the OP No. 1 in his written version that on examination the service engineer found pieces of bricks, salt and sugar Particles and adulterated fuel used in CRDI system- 2 no’s injector, which was shown to the complainant and he accepted the warranty rejection note because as per OEM warranty norms-warranty was rejected as those parts failed due to adulterated fuel and impurities. Annexure C is that warranty rejection note. Thereafter the complainant asked the OP No. 1 to make the vehicle road worthy. Accordingly it was ready on 06/09/2015 requested to take back the same but on 24/01/2015 the came back and released the vehicle in question without paying any parking charge. He only paid the tax invoice value.

            As per OP No. 1’s case the complainant filed the case without serving any prior notice and this the case is liable to be dismissed for default.

            The case has run exparte against the OP No. 2. He did not contest the case.

            The No. 3 Lakshmi Motors who also stated in its written version that the complainant is not a consumer.

            He further stated that on 05/09/2014 the complainant came to his service center but upto 07/09/2014 he did not take any information and on 08/09/2014 he took the estimate of repairing cost. Even after several call the complainant did not receive the vehicle from the service center. It is alleged that the complainant runs the vehicle for Commercial purpose, so he is not entitle to get the relief as prayed for.

            OP No. 4 also contested the case by filing his written version denying all the material allegations OP No. 4 is the L&T Finance Ltd. It is stated by the OP No. 4 that the complainant took loan from his company at the time of purchasing the vehicle in question and being a finance company it has no responsibility or liability to pay compensation to the complainant in case of any defect of the vehicle.

            So, the petition of complainant is baseless and liable to be rejected.

In view of the above stated fact and circumstances following issues are framed:

Issues

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and law?
2. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
3. Is the complainant is a consumer as per CP Act 1986?
4. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

  

 

 

 

Decision with reason.

                        All these issues are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

                        It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one TATA ACEDICOR from OP No. 2 on 30/06/2014 with the financial assistance of the OP No. 4. Both the complainant and the OP No. 1 to 4 are residing and carrying their business within the jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission.

                        From the facts and circumstances it is also revealed that the valuation of the subject matter is within the limit of this Forum.

                        It is the further case of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question on 30/06/2014 from the OP No. 2 and was plying the same on road as it was his only source to earn his livelihood.

                        But after one week of the said purchase starting problem was stated in the vehicle in question within the warranty period. Then having no other alternative on 02/09/2014 the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP No. 3 who is the authorized service center of OP No. 1.

                        It is alleged the complainant in his petition of complaint and also in his evidence and argument that the OP No. 3 repaired the vehicle on payment of Rs. 28,000/- even within the warranty period and handed over the same to the complainant on 24/01/2015.

                        Then the complainant has filed this case on 19/02/2015.

                        Hence, in view of the discussions made above it is held by me that the complainant has enough cause of action to file this case and the case is well maintainable in its present form and in law as per jurisdiction and limitation purpose. At the same time it is also held by this Commission that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No. 2 debater with the financial assistance of OP No. 4 whose the OP No. 1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question and the OP No. 3 is the authorized service center under the OP No. 1.

                        Then all the OP No. 1, 3 and 4 are the service provider to the complainant and the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of C.P. Act, 1986.

                        It is alleged by the complainant that after purchasing the vehicle in question it caused starting problem within the warranty period then the complainant brought the vehicle to the OP No. 3 service center on 02/09/2014 but after a long period the OP No. 3 handed over the repaired vehicle to the complainant on received of Rs. 28,000/- only.

                        It is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the OP No. 3 cannot take Rs. 28,000/- for repairing charge within the warranty period the OP members caused deficiency in service to the complainant and also made unfair trade practice.

                       

 

 

                        Let us see whether these is/was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No. 1, 3,  and 4 or not.

                        In this regard it is the respective argument of the OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 i.e. the manufacturer and service center of the vehicle in question that the complainant has used the vehicle for commercial purpose and also used adulterated fuel to run the vehicle which has been detects by the service engineer during servicing and repairing the vehicle in question.

                        Ld. Advocate for the OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 also argued in favour of their defence case that as per rules if the customer used adulterated fuel or any other particles to run the vehicle within the warranty period then he would not get the warranty facility and it was well within the knowledge of the complainant because he put his signature on the said documents (Annexure B) in this regard it is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the OP No. 3 the authorized service center of the OP No. 1 had examined the vehicle in his absence and restore the same on 24/01/2015 i.e. long after the vehicle brought to him i.e. on 02/09/2014 which caused financial loss to the complainant.

                        Moreover, from Annexure B of the OP No. 1 it appears that the OP No. 1 has rejected the warranty of the complainant on the ground No. 1 that water found from injector and 2 Dust entry in Fuel Tank. The OP No. 1 admitted by document that for servicing the defect of the vehicle in question they received Rs. 28,000/- but except Annexure B which is repaired by the OP No. 1 they failed to prove that water was found in the injector or dust entry was in Fuel Tank. So, without having any proof beyond reasonable doubt the OP No. 1 cannot reject the warranty facility of the complainant and illegally received a sum of Rs. 28,000/- only as servicing charge within the warranty period.

                        In view of the discussions made above I am of view that Ld. Advocate for the complainant rightly argued that the OP No. 1 illegally received the amount of Rs. 28,000/- from him as servicing charge within warranty period for removing the starting problem of the vehicle through the OP No. 3 being the authorized servicing center of the OP No. 1 and caused harassment, mental agony, pain and financial loss to the complainant which would be considered as the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No. 1 and 3.

                        The complainant has no allegation and claim against OP No. 4 financial company.

                        Hence, on the basis of discussions made above it is proved that the complainant is a consumer under the OP No. 1 and 3 and these is/was deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 and 3 as service provider to the complainant and they made unfair trade practice against the complainant by giving service against money of Rs. 28,000/- even within the warranty period and handed over the vehicle after a long time which caused harassment, mental pain and agony and also financial loss to the complainant.

                       

 

 

                        The complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                        The case is properly stamped.

                        All these issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant.

                        Hence, it is,

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.C. Case No. 34/2015 be and the same is decreed on contest against OP No. 1 and 3 with cost.

The complainant do get the decree in part as prayed for.

The OP No. 1 and 3 jointly or severally are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 28,000/- (Twenty eight thousand) only along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the amount.

The OP No. 1 and 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only to the complainant as litigation cost.

The OP No. 1 and 3 jointly or severally are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) only to the complainant for his financial loss, harassment, mental pain and agony.

The OP No. 1 and 3 jointly or severally directed to pay the entire decreetal amount within   45 days from this date of order in default the complainant is entitled to get further interest @ 6% p.a. on the entire amount form the date of default till realization of the entire amount.

If the OP No. 1 and 3 are failed to comply the decree as per direction of this Commission within 45 days from this date of order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.