CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)x
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No. 155/2008
Dr. H.C. BANSAL
D-11/21, EAST KIDWAI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110023
TEL- 24621111, 24604444
………. Complainant
Vs.
S. KRISHNAN
VICE PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL, PCBU
4TH FLOOR, NIRMAN
NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI: 4000021
…………..Respondent 1
THE GENERAL MANAGER
TATA MOTORS
26TH FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE I
CAFF PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI: 400005
FAX: 022- 66360400; TEL- 022-66561800
…………..Respondent 2
MR. JALAJ GUPTA
REGIONAL MANAGER, TATA MOTORS
NORTHERN REGION HEAD OFFICE, SOUTH CITY-I
SIGNATURE TOWER, GURGAON-122001
FAX: 95124- 2805140, TEL- 9810185258
95124-2805141- 44
…………..Respondent 3
Mr. VIRENDER SINGH
GENERAL MANAGER
SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
B-227, OKHLA PHASE-I
NEW DELHI: 110020
FAX: 26372040
TEL- 26372031, 9811353396
…………..Respondent 4
THE GENERAL MANAGER
GOOD YEAR CO. 62, RATNA ROAD
NEAR MOTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI: 110015
Tel- 64597077, 25919138
…………..Respondent 5
Date of Order: 12/12/2017
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia-Member
The complaint pertains to deficiency in part of OP with respect to Tata Indigo car purchased by complainant. It is alleged that the complainant booked the vehicle on 20/12/2006 but he received the delivery of a car only on 3/1/2007. It is further alleged that the he was verbally promised MP3 player of Sony Company worth Rs. 20,000/-, leather seat covers, four mudguard, anti-theft lock system and 25,000/- discount in price and a prize coupon but was not provided with the same. It is further contended that his name was written without prefix of ‘Dr’ in the RC book. It is also alleged that mileage was poor. The rear side mirror came off like a toy. He also complained about some rumbling sound coming from the engine.
The car was taken for first free service on 28/08/2007. It is alleged that engine oil and filter was changed only on payment of charges despite being free service. The quality of the service was very poor. He received RC book only in November 2007.
It is further alleged that the front tyre of the vehicle develop a puncture on 17/10/2007. It is contended that the tyre was suffering from manufacturing defect as a thread was found in the inside layer of the tyre.
It is further alleged that the model of the vehicle delivered in the year 2007 belonged to year 2006. It is imputed that wheel alignment, engine, headlight, horn, gear box, bonnet plastic and air conditioning system were constantly giving problem and were not up to mark.
It is further alleged that the left front tyre was punctured on 20/01/2008 and the manufacturer should have provided tubeless tyre instead of regular rubber tyres. The complainant prays for compensation.
OP1 and 2, the manufacturer in their reply has denied any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the vehicle has already covered10,145 kilometres on 25/04/2008. It is further stated the engine oil and filter are chargeable and not covered under warranty.
OP4, the dealer, in its reply has admitted that the car was booked on 20/12/2006 and was ready for delivery on 29/12/2006. The invoice was raised on 29/12/2006 but the delivery was taken by the complainant on 3/01/2007. It is also stated that complainant got a discount on the vehicle as the year of manufacturing was 2006 and purchase was being made in December. The OP has denied any verbal promises regarding leather seat MP3 speaker or coupons. It is stated that complainant was provided the music system of Kenwood Company has written in the booking form. The booking form has been placed on record.
The registration certificate was issued by the transport authority and the prefix ‘Dr’ was not inscribed in the registration certificate. As a goodwill gesture OP got the registration certificate rectified. It is further stated that the vehicle had good quality accessories and same was provided to complainant. OP has also denied any problem with the starting wheel and other features of the car. It is further submitted punctures and engine oil replacement are not covered under warranty and the dealer cannot provide a tubeless tyre.
OP5, the tyre manufacturer, in its reply has stated that the tyre was inspected by the engineering on 15/11/2007. The following observations were made.
Date of complaint : 11/11/2007
Date of inspection : 15/11/2007
Kms. Covered : 5272 KM
Defect of Reported : Tube Puncture
It is further stated that OPs were ready to replace one tyre at 25% as per standard practice. It is further reiterated that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre.
We have perused the pleadings, documents and correspondence filed by both the parties. The complainant has made allegations regarding delivery of vehicle on 3/1/2007 and being sold model with manufacturing year of 2006 instead of model with manufacturing year of 2007. The booking form filed by OP is dated 20/12/2006 and clearly shows delivery was expected in December 2006. When the booking of vehicle and delivery of vehicle is promised in the year 2006 it has to be presumed that the vehicle would have manufacturing to year as 2006, and not as 2007. It was further clarified by OP that discounts are given at the end of the year and the complainant, therefore, received a Rs. 25,000/- discount.
OP has also filed invoice dated 29/12/2006 showing that the vehicle was ready for delivery on that date itself. The complainant has not denied the booking form or the invoice. The same booking form shows discount + Kenwood MP3 system with four speakers (Sony). The complainant was never promised MP3 player of Sony Company or leather seat covers or mudguard or anti-theft lock as per the booking form. The complainant has not verified or corroborated any of these allegations by any documents.
The prefix ‘Dr’ has to be inscribed by the transport authority and no liability for the same can be imposed on OPs.
The complainant has not filed any expert evidence or service report regarding the defects in rear mirror, the wheels, engine, headlight or horn, gear box, bonnet, plastic or the air conditioning system. To prove this fact, he should have tested got the car though experts who could properly inspect/test/ analyze the vehicle in this regard and give his expert opinion/analysis in this matter.
The complainant has also alleged defect in tyre due to presence of thread inside the tyre. No photograph or report by mechanic is filed regarding the contention. On the other hand OPs have given detailed inspection report.
The complainant has used the vehicle for 10,145 kilometre by April 2008 within 16 months of purchase. If the vehicle was suffering from a manufactured defect it could not have covered 10,145 kilometre in a span of fifteen months. The claim of the complainant for refund of cost of the vehicle being unsubstantiated, the complaint is dismissed. File consigned to record room.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (A.S YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
