Haryana

Ambala

CC/243/2016

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Nikhil Handa

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

       Complaint Case No.  : 243 of 2016.

                   Date of Institution    : 08.06.2016.

                     Date of Decision      : 18.01.2018.            

Raj Kumar son of Shri Anju Ram resident of House No.77, Village Tasrouli, Tehsil Narian r/o village Shahzadpur Tehsil Naraingarh District Ambala.

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. through its manager.
2. Tata Motors, Passenger Business Unit, KD-03 Car Plant, Sector 15-16-A, PCTDA,Chikhali, Pune- 410501 (MR) through its MD/authorized signatory.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

           

Present:          Sh. Nikhil Handa, Adv. for complainant.

                        OPs exparte vide order dated 15.12.2017.

 

ORDER

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that he had purchased a Car Tata Indigo CS bearing chasis No.MAT601465CWF 32886 Engine No.14CRAIL 08FXYW 23768 Model 2012 from OP No.1 vide invoice Number PCD/35628 dated 22.10.2012 for Rs.5,69,166/-.  After purchase of the vehicle it started creating trouble and the Op No.1 got the defect removed but after a year the colour of the vehicle started fading from few places. The complainant reported the matter to OPs but they put on the matter on one pretext or the other.  Due to colouring defect some holes are looking on the body due to rust. The complainant requested the Op No.1 to remove the defect, therefore, it   got the car inspected through an expert  who told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect and the material used in the same is of sub standard quality and Op No.2 is to take action in the matter. The complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs with a request to replace the car with new one but to no effect.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C22.

2.                     On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle was properly attended by it for any kind of repair within a period of 2 years which expired in the month of Oct. 2014 to his entire satisfaction and in the month of Sep. 2015 the complainant had visited for the problem of rusting in the doors which was out of warranty, therefore, it was asked him to get the same repaired on payment basis but the complainant was not ready.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Other Contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                        OP No.2 filed its separate reply wherein it has been mentioned that customers of all passengers vehicle manufactured by the OP are provided through large network and those workshops provide schedule services, running repairs, major repairs, spare parts support and even carry out accidental repairs. The complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material facts because he has failed to disclose the terms and conditions of warranty. As per clause No.1 of terms and conditions the warranty was for 24 months from the date of sale of the car or 75000 Kms whichever occurs earlier. The complainant does not come with the ambit of consumer as the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.  The complainant had brought the vehicle for the first time at 1014 Kms for availing first free services and thereafter it was again brought on 6416 Kms for availing scheduled service but on both the occasions he did not report to the performance of the engine of the vehicle. The answering OP cannot be held liable for any defect occurs after warranty period. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. No evidence has been led and during the proceedings of this complaint the Ops did not appear before this Forum and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.12.2017. 

3.                     We have learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the vehicle purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 is having manufacturing defect and drew the attention of this Forum towards the report of Local Commissioner dated 20.9.2017. The local commissioner has held as under :

                   After examine, it is found that the body material of the car is faulty and not as per standard. So the body material of the car does not fulfill the intended purposes.

                   Poor body paint, as it peels off at various places of the body and causes heavy corrosion pinholes and material decay. The decay of the material is not natural. Hence, it is a manufacturing defect.

5.                Undisputedly, the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Op No.1 vide Annexure C1 on 22.10.2012 and in his complaint he has specifically mentioned that within a period of one year and when his grievance could not be redressed then he has approached to this Forum by filing the present complaint on 08.06.2016. The complainant had moved the application for examining the vehicle through expert 31.08.2017, therefore, the local commissioner has submitted his report dated  20.09.2017 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. After receiving the report of Local Commissioner case was adjourned the Ops have failed to do so rather they have proceeded against exparte on 15.12.2017 without leading any evidence and objections against the report of Local Commissioner. Therefore, this Forum has no option but to believe on the report of the Local Commissioner who is an independent person and there is nothing on the file to show that he has been partial while giving report. The complainant in para No.4 of his complaint has specifically mentioned that the expert of the Op No.1 was called by Op No.1 and he had checked the vehicle in question and asked about manufacturing defect in the vehicle but instead of specifically rebutting the pleas taken by the complainant both the Ops have relied on the plea that the vehicle was out of warranty, therefore, they cannot redress the grievance of the complainant free of costs.  It is pertinent to mention here that if any consumer when he buys a new vehicle he is under the impression   that a new vehicle is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new vehicle would be defect free.  A new vehicle could be defected as well.  It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the vehicle.   If the vehicle is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint  the precise  nature of defects or its cause or source. In the present complaint that the complainant has specifically averred that the colour of the vehicle started fading within a period of one year but both the Ops instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant have tried to put off the matter on one pretext or the other without taking care of the fact that the complainant has invested huge amount in purchasing the car in question.  Though the Op No.2 has mentioned in its reply that the complainant has not produced terms and conditions of the vehicle on the case file but this plea is not tenable because the burden to prove this plea was also on the Ops because they have taken this plea that the car in question was out of warranty when the complainant has narrated this problem.

6.                Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances as well as the report of local commissioner as well as the fact that the complainant has been using the vehicle in question since 2012. Though the complainant has filed the present complaint on 08.06.2016 after giving registered notice on 23.12.2015, therefore, it would be appropriate if we direct the Ops to make compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- instead of replacing of the vehicle and refunding of the cost to the complainant for the defect in question because there was nothing on the file to show that the vehicle was not in a position to ply on the road.  Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and the ops are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant alongwith costs which is assessed at Rs.5,000/-.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 18.01.2018                                                              (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)        (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

          MEMBER                               MEMBER