Case No. 125/2021   

      IN THE MATTER OF

              Nagender Singh S/O Vikas Singh, R/O House no-7, Village-

              Rudari, Distt- Bulandshahr

                                           V/s

1. M/S Ashoka Auto Sales Ltd, G T Road, Aligarh through manager
2. Tata Motors Ltd, Passenger Vehicle Business Unit 4^th Storey, Ahura Centre, 82, Mahakali Cab Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400093 through General manger
3. Branch Manager H.D.B. Finance Company, Old Anupshahr Adda, Ramghat Road, Aligarh

              CORAM

              Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

             PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.     The OPs be directed to repair the truck free of cost.
2.  The OPS be directed to take compensation Rs.4 lakh or mental, physical and economic damages.
3. Cost of the case Rs. 20,000/ be awarded.
4. The OP – 3 be directed not to take the possession of the truck forcibly during pendency of the case.
5. Any other relief, which the commission deems fit be awarded.

2. Complainant stated that he had purchased a truck manufactured by OP-2 bearing registration no. UP-13, BK 9080, and was financed by HDB Financial Ltd, Aligarh. When the complainant was going to Calcutta with his nephew, Yogendra Singh, it was displaying on the display board of the truck, visit workshop and check light. On this complainant complained to customer care of the OP-2 and then complaint was lodged on 05/04/2021. Complainant was asked by the OP-2 to take the truck at the service center MA Tara Chandi work shop Bihar. The complainant brought the truck at the workshop and handed over there. But the vehicle was returned after 15, 20 days without any service and then the vehicle was brought by crane at the service center of OP-1 on 15/06/2021. OP-1 did not return the truck till date and he has been suffering from physical, mental and economic pains. He has been making payment of installment of Rs. 59200/ and he has been suffering loss of Rs. 10000/ per day. The truck has manufacturing defect, which could not be repaired. There is deficiency in service and is unfair trade practice. Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 4 lakh.
3.  Op-1 stated in WS that the complainant had brought the truck on 13/04/2021 for the first time for running repair checkup and thereafter on different dates for service. Complainant visited the showroom several times but he did not take away the truck.

4.  Op-2 has stated in WS that the OP-2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and does not sell the vehicle in retail in the market. The authorized dealer of the OP-2 sells the vehicle in retail and the authorized dealer carries on service and repairs of the vehicle after sale and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP-2. As per information received by OP-2 from its authorized dealer OP-1 the truck is lying with the OP-1 and complainant is not approaching to take the delivery of the truck. The manufacturing defect is different from general shortcomings of the vehicle and the complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect. Complainant has failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle which could not be removed or the service was not provided under the warranty period from time to time.

5. OP-3 stated in WS that the complainant was financed in purchasing the truck no-UP-13 BT 9080 and was given the loan amount Rs. 2173939/ which was to be repaid in 53 installments, each installment of Rs. 56678/. Complainant has paid the amount RS. 57600/ till date.   

6. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.  OPs have also filed their affidavit and papers in support of their pleadings

7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.

8. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

8.  Admittedly, the truck no. UP-13BT 9080 manufactured by op-2 was brought to the op-1 showroom as the dealer of op-2 for service and is standing there. It is stated in para – 6 of para wise reply of op-2 that the op-1 is authorized dealer of op-2. The truck is not in working order. The truck was purchased on 31/03/2021 and was brought at op-1 showroom on 15/06/2021 of which job card was issued on 28/06/2021. As per condition no -1 of the warranty terms and conditions, the warranty shall be for 18 months from the date of sale. It is clear that the truck was brought to the op-1 showroom for service within warranty period and the OPS were under obligation to carry out the service of the truck and make it in working order. Complainant is entitled for delivery of the truck after complete service of the truck to make it in the condition of working order and also for compensation for physical, mental and economic sufferings at Rs. 2 lakh with litigation expenses Rs. 10000/. Complainant has borrowed the loan for purchasing the truck and he had to pay the installments including the interest and therefore he had suffered loss on account of failure of the op not to deliver the truck after the service and therefore he is entitled for compensation Rs. 2 lakh. Ops no.1 and 2 are liable to repair the truck free of cost and to deliver the truck to the deliver to the complainant within a week after repairing.     
9.  The question formulated above is decided in favor of complainant.
10. The second question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to defer the payment of the installments for six months.
11. Complainant has stated that he had borrowed the money to purchase the truck and the monthly installment is Rs.59200/. It is clear that there can be no income from the truck which was under repairs and therefore complainant is unable to pay the monthly installments. In view of facts and circumstances the case it appears just and proper to defer the payment of monthly installment for six month during which complainant could be able to earn the money for payment of the installments. Op no.3 is liable to defer the payment of the installment to be paid by the complainant for six months.
12. The question formulated above is decided in favor of complainant.
13. We hereby direct the Op-1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount Rs. 2 lakh as compensation and litigation expenses of Rs 10000/. Op-1 is directed to deliver the truck to the complainant in a fit condition of plying on the road. Op no.3 is directed not to take the possession of the truck forcibly on account of non-payment of installments for six months after taking delivery from OP No.1 and complainant is permitted to pay the monthly installment after six months with out interest of intervening period and OP no.3  is directed to defer the payment of installments for six month.
14. Ops shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
15.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. 
16.  File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.