Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.07.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 14,229/-/- along with interest including compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a TATA Sumo DI vehicle on 29.08.2009 from M/s Guinea Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party no. 1). After purchasing the aforesaid vehicle the complainant use to maintain and ply the vehicle as per instruction given by the company in its manual. After purchasing the aforesaid vehicle, he use to complain the opposite party no. 1 about some defect in the clutch- platee as the function of clutch plate was not normal. The staff of opposite party no. 1 replied that as the vehicle is new hence there may be some difficulty but after some time every part will function normally. On 19.03.2010 the complainant again came to workshop as the brake of vehicle was not functioning. After checking the vehicle the staff of the workshop has stated that ment disk and brake padel are diffective. The same were changed and Rs. 2,261/- was charged from the complainant as will appear from annexure – 4.
Again the complainant brought his vehicle for servicing on 19.11.2010 as the vehicle was under warranty period. The complainant complained about some defect in the clutch plate but nobody took any response due to which the clutch plate burnt on 21.11.2010. The complainant again complained the manager of opposite party no. 1 and went to workshop on 26.11.2010 again he was charged Rs. 6,968/- for removing the defect of clutch plate on 27.11.2010 as will appear from annexure - 3.
The grievance of the complainant is that during warranty period and defective parts the vehicle was repaired by opposite party no. 1 and Rs. 9,229/- was charged during warranty period which is illegal.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It has been stated that vehicle in question was reported to opposite party no. 1 on 19.03.2011 after plying Rs. 16,400 Km for problem in brake of the vehicle in question. After checking it came to light that pads were burnt out due to abnormal use of brake which is described as normal wear and tear.
It has been further stated that the vehicle in question was again reported for clutch problem on 27.11.2010 after plying the same of 31,200 Km and it was found that clutch lining was burnt and as per warranty policy of TATA Motors burnt out clutch is again not covered under the terms of warranty as it comes under normal wear and tear.
The complainant has again filed rejoinder to the aforesaid fact in which it is stated that on 19.03.2010 he had complained to workshop about trouble in ment disk and at the time the vehicle was simply plied of 1,640 Km.
It is further stated that if any defect is made in the vehicle in question within 18 months of the purchase, then it has to be repaired or changed without any price as per warranty manual.
It has been further asserted by the complainant that on 19.11.2010 he had already complained about the same but was not taken care of due to which the aforesaid clutch plate was burnt on 21.11.2010.
-
As nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 hence this case has heard ex parte against opposite party no. 2.
It is the definite case of the complainant that he had made complained about his clutch plate on 19.11.2010 but the same was taken care of due to which the clutch plate burnt on 21.11.2010.
It goes without saying that at that time the vehicle was under warranty period.
Had the clutch plate of the vehicle of the complainant would have been repaired on 19.11.2010 ? the complainant would have not paid Rs. 6,968/- which is the charge for repairing the clutch plate etc.
The complainant has further stated that he had earlier also complained about ment disk and brake padel for which Rs. 2,261/- was charged by workshop during the warranty period.
The assertion of opposite party no. 1 that the aforesaid defect were simply wear and tear is not convincing because the complainant was lodging complaint with the opposite parties with regard to defect in the vehicle from very early period. This fact has not been denied by opposite parties.
No any document or expert opinion brought on the record by opposite party that aforesaid defect were only wear and tear.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that in realizing Rs. 9,229/- by the workshop on the pretext of wear and tear is nothing but deficiency on the part of opposite parties for which they are jointly and severally responsible.
Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 14,229/- ( Rs. Fourteen thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will pay 10% on the above said amount of Rs. 14,229/- ( Rs. Fourteen thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine only ) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
