IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 25th day of June , 2012
Filed on 03/11/2008
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.260/2008
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Sri. K.Santhappan, S/o Karunakaran residing at Xanadu, Thannermukkom, Cherthala, Kerala. (By Adv.P.Roy, Alappuzha) | 1. The Managing Director, TATA Motors, Mumbai House, 24,Homimday Street, Fort Mumbai,400001 2. The Managing Director,Koyenco Auto Pvt.Ltd, N.H.Byepass,Maradu P.O, Cochin. ( By Adv.E.K.Madhavan) |
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH(PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-The complainant is the registered owner of the TATA SAFARI (Dicor) VX bearing No.KL 32/1888. The complainant had purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party on 5th October 2006 for an amount of Rs.10,16,331/- ( Rupees ten lakhs sixteen thousand three hundred thirty one only ). The said vehicle was holding a warranty for 1.5 years, and as per the policy dated the warranty was extended to a further 30 months. The complainant had purchased the vehicle on the allurement and assurance of the opposite parties as to the impeccable performance and perfect condition of the vehicle. The complainant was committed to effect proper periodical maintenance from time to time. Strangely yet , the vehicle right from the very beginning of its purchase displayed repeated impairments and malfunctioning. Every day, one mechanism or other, sometimes the gear, clutch or rear axle used to fall in trouble. What is more the multiple portion of the vehicle would emit irritating and intolerable sounds. The complainant was constrained to stay on in the 2nd opposite party’s service centre for repairing the vehicle. Not withstanding the patching up of the vehicle for more than 30 times, still the vehicle remains deficient and defective. The complainant had to run from pillar to post hoping to get his grievances ventilated. The complainant’s all-out efforts to get the defects of the vehicle rectified failed, for the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defects. The complainant sustained indescribable mental agony and monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed separate versions. The crux of the opposite parties’ contention is that at the time of booking of the vehicle and taking delivery of the same, the complainant had personally inspected the vehicle and satisfied with the perfection of the same. According to the opposite parties, whenever any sort of defect was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, their service staff would patch up the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant showed no major problems. The same has no manufacturing defect, the opposite parties contend. The opposite parties have not caused monetary loss or mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint itself is vexatious, and the same is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties vehemently contend.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and the documents Exbts A1 to A37 were marked. Joint RTO Kollam was examined as CW1 and his report was marked as Exbt C1, the expert commissioner was examined as CW2, and his report was marked as C2 and the Advocate commissioner was examined as CW3, and his report was marked as C3. On the side of the opposite parties its manager was examined as RW1 ,and the documents Exbts B1 series to B7 were marked
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the material vehicle the complainant purchased from the opposite parties is of manufacturing defect?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. We meticulously perused the complaint, version, testimonies and voluminous records placed on record by the parties. The complainant case is that the vehicle, the complainant purchased from the opposite parties is or manufacturing defects. Right from the purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant was constrained to take his vehicle to the opposite parties more than thirty occasions for carrying out repairing works on the vehicle. The complainant had to invest a huge amount for the same. A perusal or Exbts A8 to A34 series job cards and tax invoices manifestly show that the complainant’s vehicle was subjected to recurrent repairing works to rectify its various impairments. Also it is crucial to notice that the opposite parties seemingly did not make any serious effort to deny or dispute the factum of frequent surfacing of the shortcoming of the vehicle or its recurrent repairing. On a close scrutiny of the materials put on record, it is unfurled that the vehicle was even subjected to overhauling of engine at an earlier stage which can be suggestive of some defects as to the manufacturing of the vehicle. When Rwl the manager of the opposite party was cross examined, he deposed that the engine used in the vehicle had ceased to be produced. Again a plain perusal of Exbt A27 series would reveal that the pollution of the vehicle is not in line with the expected level of the new vehicle. The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant was afforded opportunity to inspect the vehicle to his satisfaction prior to the purchase of the same sounds absolutely preposterous and inconsequential. An analysis of the testimony of CW1 and CW2 and their reports Exbts C1 & C2 clearly show that the material vehicle was afflicted with multiple problems. In this setting, the facts and materials being looked carefully into its entirety, we are of the strong view that there is defect in the material vehicle . It goes without saying that the complainant is entitled to relief. At the same time, when contemplate on rendering relief to the complainant, we are to overwhelmingly weigh up the ageing of the vehicle as well as the distance of more than sixty thousand KM the same has covered. We are of the view that, the replacing of the material vehicle or giving back its cost at this stage would definitely militate against propriety and wisdom. We must remind ourselves the need for reflecting the aforesaid aspects while passing an order in the instant case.
6. For the forging facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only ) as compensation to be obtained from the opposite parties for the mental agony and loss the complainant sustained and we further direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of 2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only ) as cost of this proceedings. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of June , 2012. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Santhappan (Witness )
Exbt.A1 - Tax Invoice
Exbt.A2 - Sale Certificate dated 05/10/2006
Exbt.A3 - Poster of Car
Exbt.A4 - Complaints- Tata Safari Dicor
Exbt.A5 - Letter dated 20/11/2007
Exbt.A6 - Legal Notice dated 11/08/2008
Exbt.A7 - Letter dated 14/08/2008
Exbt.A8 - Job Card dated 19/12/2006
Exbt.A9 – Job card dated 27/02/07
Exbt.A10 –Tax Invoice
Exbt.A11 - Invoice of Tata Motors
Exbt.A12 - Carbon copy of Invoice
Exbt.A13 – Letter dated 01/12/2007
Exbt.A14 – Proforma Invoice
Exbt.A15 - Job Slip dated 29-05-08
Exbt . A16 – Cash Bill dated 23/08/08
Exbt.A17 - Job Card
Exbt.A18 - Tax Invoice
Exbt.A19 - Job Slip
Exbt.A20 - Tax Invoice
Exbt.A21 – Tax Invoice
Exbt.A22 – Tax Invoice
Exbt.A23 – Tax Invoice
Exbt.A24 – Job Slip
Exbt.A25 – Tax Invoice
Exbt.A26 - Letter given to opposite party by complainant
Exbt.A27 –Pollution under control certificate
Exbt.A27 (3 Nos)- Pollution control certificate
Exbt.A28-Job Slip
Exbt.A29 – Job Slip dated 18/02/10
Exbt.A30 – Tax Invoice dated 02/12/2009
Exbt.A31 –Tax Invoice dated 22/02/2010
Exbt.A32 – Pollution Under Control Certificate dated 29/05/2010
Exbt.A33 – Copy of Pollution under control Certificate
CW1 - Sri. Prathap .K. (Court Witness)
CW2 – P.R.Sumesh ( “ )
CW3 - Sri.Vinoy Varghese (“ )
Exbt.C1. – Report
Exbt.C2 – Report
Exbt. C3 - Mahazar
Evidence of the opposite party- Exbt.B1 to B7
RW1 - Sri. Shaji Valasseri (Winess)
Exbt.B1 (01 -Job card of Tata Motors
Exbt.B1 (2) - Job Card of Tata Motors dated 28/10/06
Exbt.B1(3) - Job Card of Tata Motors dated 06/02/08
Exbt.B1(4) -Job Card dated 10/12/08
Exbt.B1 (5) - Job Card dated 18/03/2008
Exbt.B (6) - Job Card dated 17/03/2008
Exbt.B(7) -Job Card dated 06/06/07
CW2 – Sri. P.R.Suresh (Court Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
