Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/183

Manpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dada Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C. No. 183 of 06.03.2013

                                                          Date of Decision: 13.08.2014

Manpreet Singh s/o Sh.Narinder Pal Singh r/o House No.347, Salem Tabri, Neta Ji Nagar, Back Side, PNB Bank, Ludhiana.

                                                                                       … Complainant.

                                             Versus            

1.M/s. Dada Motors Private Limited., Savitri Complex-1, G.T.Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.M/s Tata Motors, Regional Office, SCO 364, 65, 66, 2^nd Floor, Sector-34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Manager.

3.M/s Garryson Motors Private Limited, Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                                                                      …Opposite Parties

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Quorum     Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member. 

                   Smt.Priti Malhotra, Member.         

                                               

Present       Sh.Rajan Kumar Chand, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OP1.

Sh.Vikarant Marwaha, Adv.for OP2.

Ms.Rupila Mohini, Adv. for OP3.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Manpreet Singh(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the car with new one alongwith Rs.1 lakh as damages suffered by the complainant on account of mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee besides other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a car make Tata Indigo eCS Diesel LX E-IV Version, from OP1 on 19.7.2011 vide sale certificate No.Dada-1112-006-19-SC for an amount of Rs.5,30,022/- which bears the registration No.PB-10-DF-5001. The complainant has purchased the said car for his personal use. There was manufacturing defect in the abovesaid car and there was a complaint of fourth gear of the car alongwith other minor complaints from the very beginning. The complainant get the vehicle serviced first time for service centre of Ops as per the conditions stated in the service book provided alongwith the car and thereafter, the complainant got his car serviced from OP3 authorized dealer of OP2 company for service of Tata Cars. During every service, the complainant brought to the notice of the officials of service station regarding the problems in the car but the officials always delivered the car after service with the assurance that fault in the car has been removed and now it will not complaint. The car of the complainant was kept by the OP3 for 3-4 days but the complaint was not redressed. During this period, numbers of parts of the car were replaced to remove the fault of fourth gear such as injector, ECM and Head of the car. The complainant went to Garryson Motors Private Limited to get his car serviced with the same complainant of fourth gear on 21.1.2013 and the car was still with them. The complainant received a call from Garyson Motors on 5.2.2013, that the car has been repaired and its engine has been changed. The complainant went for test drive of the car but the working of the engine of the car deteriorate and there was no pick up of the car and its fourth gear was still not working upto the satisfaction. The car was lying with the Garyson Motors since 21.2.2013 to 27.2.2013. The car of the complainant remained with Ops more than 20 times due to fault in the car and every time, the car was returned with the assurance that fault has been removed but the said fault was never removed. The complainant served a legal notice dated 6.2.2013 through his counsel. However, despite receiving the said notice, Ops failed to do anything. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their respective counsel and filed their separate written replies.

4.                OP1 in the written reply, in which, Op1 took up certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as no cause of action accrued to the complainant against the answering OP as the answering Op has not at all committed any wrong nor there is any deficiency in service on their part. Infact, the complainant has filed the present complaint in order to extract huge money from the answering OP by misusing and abusing the process of law and also by taking the benefits of his own wrongs. There is no manufacturing defect in the car in question nor there was any problem of fourth gear or any other problem as is clear from the service history. The complainant first of all reported about the door lock problem on 20.7.2011 after driving the vehicle upto 100 Kms and the same was removed under warranty and free of costs. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the answering OP on 9.8.2011 for first service after driving the vehicle upto 878 Kms and this time, the complainant did not complaint about any problem in the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant again came to the service station of answering OP on 18.10.2011 with the problem of fog/condensation in exterior light lenses and the same was also removed under warranty to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the answering OP on 14.3.2012 after running the vehicle upto 10553 Kms and problem of interior lights not working, parking brake problem and the same were also fully repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. After that, the complainant again brought the vehicle to the service station on 21.3.2012 after plying the vehicle upto 10758 Kms and this time, he reported about door lock problem, which was fully repaired/replaced free of costs. During all the abovesaid visits to the service station of the answering OP, the complainant never reported about any fourth gear problem. So, the present complaint is absolutely false on the face of it and to the very knowledge of the complainant as there is no fourth gear problem in the vehicle. On merits, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                OP2 filed the written reply, in which, OP2 took up certain preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum by suppressing the material facts; the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of defects i.e. fault of fourth gear, injector, ECM and Head of Car, repairing of engine, low pick-up in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Further, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on or around 19.7.2011 from the answering OP’s dealer and the said vehicle in question till 6.3.2013 had covered  around 26309 Kms. The said fact proves that the subject vehicle is in absolute roadworthy condition and that the job carried out on the vehicle in question are minor and running repairs, which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the said vehicle. The answering OP has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty as and when reported. Therefore, the prayers as made by the complainant for refund of the price of the said vehicle are untenable and unsustainable. The relationship exists between the answering OP is on ‘principal to principal’ basis and the answering OP cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by the other OP1 and OP3. On merits, the facts regarding OP1 is the authorized dealer of answering OP, purchase of the vehicle in question from OP1 and payment of the amount qua the same as alleged are not denied. However, it is submitted that the complainant has not paid any consideration to the answering OP, as such, the complainant is not a consumer of the answering OP and the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. Further, it is submitted that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was not suffering from any manufacturing defects and further, there was no complaint of 4^th gear in the car of the complainant from the very beginning. The complainant is making bald and vague allegations without any substance or documentary proof. The complainant has not annexed any job card with regard to the complaint, experienced by him since beginning. The allegations with regard to experiencing problem in transmission of 4^th gear, replacement of parts, injector, ECM and head of the car are vague and baseless. As per information received, Op1 and OP3 have not retained the vehicle of the complainant. Further, it is submitted that the complainant had visited to the workshop of OP1 on 9.8.2011 for availing first free service. The vehicle had covered 878 Kms till then and there was no problem in the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant had taken the vehicle to the OP3 after coverage of 9596 Kms for availing 2^nd free service and there was no complaint of slipping gear, injector or other part as alleged in the complaint. All the insurance are in writing and there were no question of extending any verbal commitments as is projected in the complaint. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has alleged the false allegations about the engine. The allegations of the test drive, replacement of the engine, 20 visits to the workshop of OP3 etc. are false and vague. The vehicle of the complainant is not suffering from the alleged pick-up and/or other defect. Further, it is submitted that after 26309 Kms, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP3 for the complaint of engine jerky/noise level high. The OP3 do the needful as mentioned in the tax invoice dated 6.3.2013 and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in satisfactory working condition. The vehicle was maintained by the dealers of answering OP under the warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 6.3.2013 in roadworthy condition. Further, it is submitted that the vehicle in question manufactured by the answering OP is an assembly of thousands of engineering parts. Any of the parts could easily be replaced without adversely effecting the performance of the other part. Thus, the contention of the complainant is without any foundation. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                OP3 in the written reply took up certain preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form because the same is based on wrong facts which are required to be disclosed at the time of filing the present complaint and the said facts have been concealed by the complainant from this Hon’ble Forum; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP; the complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts from this Hon’ble Forum; no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant against the answering OP to file the present false and frivolous complaint and the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conducts and is not doing equity. Further, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that in fact, the true facts are that the complainant came with the vehicle at the workshop to get the second free service at 9596 Kms Odometer reading on 1.3.2012 for the first time. There was no complaint reported by the complainant. The vehicle of the complainant was serviced and delivered upto his satisfaction. Thereafter, again the vehicle was reported to the workshop at 10243 Kms odometer reading on 9.3.2012 with the complaint of check engine light blowing on instrument cluster. The said complaint was also resolved and vehicle was delivered to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the vehicle was again brought to the workshop for third free service at 19493 Kms odometer reading on 25.8.2012 and there was no complaint reported by the complainant. The service was done and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his satisfaction. Finally, the vehicle again reported to the workshop at 26309 Kms odometer reading on 1.3.2013 with the complaint of engine jerky and high engine noise level. The complaint was resolved and the vehicle was also inspected by the Tata Motors Service representatives and the vehicle road test alongwith the complainant. The vehicle was running satisfactory and there was no complaint present. The vehicle was again delivered to the complainant with his entire satisfaction. Thereafter, the vehicle never came for service or inspection to the workshop of the answering OP. On merits, the fact regarding OP1 is the authorized dealer of OP2 and purchase of the vehicle in question as alleged are not denied. However, it is submitted that the complainant is not consumer with the answering OP as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, because the complainant never purchased the said vehicle from the answering OP. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made by the complainant against the answering OP in the complaint being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

7.                Complainant in order to support his claim, adduced evidence by placing on record his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A of  complainant and Ex.CW2/A of Er.Nalin Tayal, Chartered Engineer alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.

8.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 adduced evidence by placing on record the documents Ex.Rw1/A to Ex.RW1/G, whereas, learned counsel for the OP2 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit  Ex.RA2 of Sh.M.K.Bipin Das, its Sr.Manager, Legal and on the other hand, learned counsel for the OP3 has placed on record affidavit Ex.RA/3 of Sh.Rajinder Singh, its General Manager alongwith documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/4.

9.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written reply, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and further, it has been submitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question from OP1 and there is manufacturing defect in the said car and there was a complaint of fourth gear of the car alongwith other minor complaints from the very beginning. The complainant approached time and again to the OP1 and OP3 with the complaint of defect in the vehicle which is evident from the copy of job cards which have been placed on the file. During the period, the car of the complainant kept by the OP3 for 3-4 days for repair, number of parts of the car of the complainant such as injector, ECM and head of the car were replaced and the complainant had received a call from Garyson Motors on 5.2.2013 and the car has been repaired and its engine was changed and the complainant went for test drive of the same but the working of the engine of the car deteriorate and there was no pick up of the car and its fourth gear was still not working upto the satisfaction. The complainant has placed on record the report of Er.Nalin Tayal, Chartered Engineer, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, who inspected the vehicle and submitted his detailed report qua the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and has also furnished his affidavit.

11.              On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP1 has contended that though the vehicle in question was sold by the OP1 but even then if there is any alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, the OP1 is not liable for replacement of the same. Further, it has been contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle which is evident from the copies of job cards which have been placed on record by the OP1. The complainant never alleged any defect in the fourth gear in the vehicle nor complainant has ever approached OP1 with any request to get the fourth gear of the vehicle repaired.

12.              Learned counsel for the OP2 has contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The report of Er.Nalin Tayal relied upon by the complainant is not reliable and trustworthy and the same is procured one. No prior permission of the Hon’ble Forum has been taken before taking the report of the aforesaid engineer. Rather, the Engineer Sh.Ravinder Singh of Tata Motors Ltd.,, who had inspected the vehicle with the direction of this Hon’ble Forum found the vehicle to be ok and even test drive of vehicle was taken by Sh.Ravinder Singh in the presence of the complainant and others, whose presence were recorded on the present sheet and submitted his report that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.

13.              Learned counsel for the OP3 has contended that the complainant approached many times for service and repair of the vehicle. But it has never been found that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Learned counsel for the OP3 has also relied upon the report of Sh.Ravinder Singh, Engineer of Tata Motors, who took the test drive of the vehicle in question in the presence of the complainant and found the satisfaction of the working of the vehicle. There is no defect in the vehicle when the same was inspected and driven by the said engineer Sh.Ravinder Singh.

14.              We have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the OP1 to OP3 and have also gone through the documents on the file very carefully.

15.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP1, manufactured by OP2 which bears the registration No.PB-10-DF-5001. Further, it is a proved fact on record that since the date of purchase, the complainant had been getting his vehicle repaired/serviced from OP1 and OP3, who are the authorized dealer of OP2. It is also a proved fact on record that the complainant had been getting his vehicle repaired time and again from the OP1 and OP2 which fact is evident from copies of job cards. Further, it is a proved fact that the complainant has been approaching OP1 and OP3 with the complaint of defect in the vehicle in question and he even getting his vehicle repaired after filling the job cards with the OP1 and OP3 respectively.

16.              Though, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the vehicle of the complainant suffers from some manufacturing defect, as a result of which, the defect of fourth gear has become incurable even after the replacement of the engine of the vehicle and has relied upon the report of Er.Nalin Tayal as Ex.C19, who has also furnished his affidavit as Ex.CW2/A in this regard, in which, he has reported that the vehicle is suffering from some manufacturing defect, as a result of which, the vehicle is still having problem in running on 4^th gear, at above 40 Km/hr speed and 1300 rpm plus.

17.              However, perusal of this report of Er.Nalin Tayal Ex.C19 reveals that it does not bear any date and time as and when the inspection of the vehicle was conducted by the said engineer of the complainant and further, this report does not find mentioned the date of issue as and when this report was issued by the said engineer. Furthermore, there is nothing in the report, from which, it could be presumed that any notice was ever served to the Ops to join the inspection proceedings by the representative of the Ops nor there is any reference in the report that they were ever joined. It is further relevant to mention here that there is no reference of inspection of the vehicle by the aforesaid engineer Er.Nalin Tayal in the complaint of the complainant, if he had inspected the vehicle of the complainant prior to filing of the complaint. So, if he had inspected the vehicle during the pendency of the complaint, the law demand that complainant should have sought the permission of this Forum to get the vehicle inspected from the said engineer Er.Nalin Tayal in the presence of the Ops and to submit his report Ex.C19 in his evidence. However, the record reveals that the complainant has not sought any permission from this Forum nor any notice of inspection was ever served upon the Ops by the complainant of the said Er.Nalin Tayal. So, under these circumstances, the aforesaid report Ex.C19 cannot be relied upon.

18.               Further, the record reveals that Ops had got the vehicle of the complainant inspected from their Engineer Sh.Ravinder Singh with the permission of this Forum, who had inspected the vehicle in question and took the test drive of the same in the presence of the complainant and submitted his report dated 21.8.2013 as Ex.RW1/G with the observations that during test drive, there is no abnormality found in the vehicle and the same has been found in good driving condition. No jerking observed during test drive and pick up and gear shifting found OK. Hence, no abnormality found regarding other performance parameters of the vehicle. The vehicle found in the roadworthy condition. This report also filed alongwith the presence sheet which bears the signature of the complainant Sh.Manpreet Singh and other persons namely Sh.Manjeet Singh, Debasish Nayak, Inder Mohan Pal Singh and Ravinder Singh who were present there at the time of inspection of the vehicle in question. So, it is apparently clear from this report Ex.RW1/G of Sh.Ravinder Singh that vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and need any replacement.

19.              Though, it is a proved fact on record that the vehicle is not suffering from any manufacturing defect. But, it is a proved on record from the job cads placed on record by the complainant as well as Ops that there was a problem in the vehicle from the beginning and the complainant had been approaching time and again to the Ops for the repair of his vehicle. OP1 and OP3 had been providing their best services to the complainant qua repairing his vehicle but despite that the complainant has levelled the specific allegations that till date, the vehicle suffers from some defect in the fourth gear and further, there are other minor defects in the vehicle which needs repair and it is a well settled principle of law that it is the legal obligation of the manufacturer and dealer to provide the repairing services to vehicle which they have sold to the consumer like the complainant free of costs. As such, the complainant is entitled to get his vehicle repaired from the Ops free of costs.

20.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly allow this complaint and as a result, direct the OPs to carry out the necessary repair in the vehicle of the complainant especially in the fourth gear box and other parts of the vehicle by proper repairing or replacing the defective parts, if any, without any costs and make the vehicle of the complainant fit and smooth running on the road to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                             (Sat Paul Garg)    (R.L.Ahuja)

     (Member)                            Member               President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.08.2014

Gurpreet Sharma.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manpreet Singh vs. M/s.Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd.

 

13.08.2014

 

Present       Sh.Rajan Kumar Chand, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OP1.

Sh.Vikarant Marwaha, Adv.for OP2.

Ms.Rupila Mohini, Adv. for OP3.

 

Written arguments on behalf of Ops not filed. Arguments have been heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

    (Priti Malhotra)                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

     Member                              Member                        President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:13.08.2014