DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 289 of 2010] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 12.05.2010 Date of Decision : 31.08.2012 -------------------------------- [1] Sandeep Sood son of Late Shri S.N. Sood, Regional Accounts Manager, LG Electronics India (P) Limited, R/o H.No. 165, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh. [2] LG Electronics India (P) Limited, SCO No. 142-143, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through Sh. Sandeep Sood, Regional Accounts Manager, being authorized signatory. ---Complainants VERSUS [1] M/s Joshi Autozone Pvt. Limited, Showroom and Workshop 84-85, Indl. Area Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. [2] Managing Director, M/s Joshi Autozone Pvt. Limited, Showroom and Workshop 84-85, Indl. Area Phase-II, Chandigarh. [3] Branch Head, Passengers Car Division, M/s TATA Motors Limited, SCO No. 170-172, 1st Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. [4] M/s TATA Motors Limited, Bombay House 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001, through its President (Passenger Cars Division). ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Nitin Gupta, counsel for Complainants. Sh. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Sh. Devinder Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Counsel for Opposite Party No. 3 & 4. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainants have filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant No.1 is an official of Opposite Party No.2, and working as Regional Accounts Manager, posted at Chandigarh. As per the company’s facility, Complainant No.1 purchased a passenger car, for his personal use, by availing an interest free loan from Opposite Party No.2, and the same is registered in the name of Opposite Party No.2. Complainant No.1, under authorization from Opposite Party No.2, has filed the present complaint on the ground that the vehicle TATA Safari Dicor car was purchased by him on 8.10.2009, vide invoice no. Joshi-A-0910-00798, against the payment of Rs.7,71,451/-, inclusive of logistics, accessories and temporary registration expenses. Complainant No.1 took the delivery of vehicle in question. Copy of invoice receipt, sale certificate and delivery are annexed at Annexure C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-7 respectively. The Complainant No.1 while using the vehicle in question found that the same was not in order, as it was dragging/ pulling on the left hand side, due to inherent/ manufacturing defect. This fact was, immediately, brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 on 10.10.2009. The car was presented before the Sales Division, who, after testing the same, advised the Complainant to use it, and observed all other defects, and Opposite Party No.1 and 2 promised that these will be taken care of at the time of 1st free service. Accordingly, on 25.10.2009, car was again presented before Opposite Party No.1 and 2 for 1st free service and the issues highlighted by the Complainant were duly recorded on the job card. After the 1st free service, Complainant was assured that the defects have been rectified and that the car can be used without any problem. The Complainant, however, did not find any improvement in the performance of the vehicle, therefore, on 28.10.2009, Complainant again approached Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and requested them to either rectify the defects or to replace the vehicle with another defect free vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 retained the car in the workshop and promised to deliver the car to him the same evening, after due rectifications. The Complainant, on receipt of the vehicle, found that the problem still persisted. However, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, thereafter, kept on putting the matter away, on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile 2nd free service fell due, and the car was taken on 6.12.2009, to the workshop of the Opposite Parties, for the same, and the problems were duly recorded in the job card, again. But after the 2nd free service, the same problem still persisted. Complainant gave a written complaint to that effect but opposite parties flatly refused to acknowledge the same. At the same time, the service engineer of the Opposite Parties took trial of the vehicle in question and felt that there was something amiss or defective, but same remained unaddressed in the absence of anything being done needful. The Complainant was harassed, time and again, and no efforts were made to deal with the problems highlighted by the Complainant. The Complainant claims to have exchanged some written communications with regard to these problems, but claims that nothing concrete has come out from these communications; whereas the Complainant has suffered other consequential losses and interest up-to-date because of not having used the vehicle in question to its optimum level. Aggrieved of the act of the Opposite Parties, Complainant served a legal notice on the Opposite Parties. Not having heard, anything from the side of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has preferred the present complaint, seeking the relief of replacement of the vehicle in question, with a brand new defect free car or in the alternative, refund of Rs.7,71,451/- towards the cost of vehicle, along with registration charges, cost of accessories and other expenses incurred. The Complainants thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] To replace the TATA Safari Dicor Car bearing Engine No. 22L Dicor06HQZJ11821, Chassis No. MAT 4030669NH08783 (Vehicle No. CH-04-L-6989) with a brand new defect less car of the same make, colour and specifications etc. or in the alternative to refund the entire amount of Rs.7,71,451/- towards the cost of the same along with registration charges, cost of accessories and other expenses incurred on the car in question. [b] To pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and mental torture etc; [c] Interest @12% per annum on the claim amount; [d] To pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation; The complaint of the complainants is supported by detailed affidavit of Complainant No.1. 2. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have contested the claim of the complainants by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainant. It is further mentioned that the vehicle in question was sold to the Complainants, subject to the conditions of warranty, on the terms contained therein. The answering Opposite Party’s responsibility is only towards repair or to replace the defective components at its sole discretion during the warranty period, when the answering Opposite Parties acknowledges the same to be attributable to faulty material or workmanship. In the present case, the vehicle, in question, is a perfect merchantable automobile, which was sold, without any defect. As the Complainant has not disclosed as to in what manner his allegations are covered by the term complaint, thus, the Consumer Fora cannot grant the relief claimed by the Complainant, as is enumerated in clause 2(ii) of Section 14 of the Act, as the same requires an expert and voluminous evidence. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. The sale of the vehicle as well as the issue of the regular free services availed by the Complainants are admitted and as alleged, the problems claimed to have been mentioned by the Complainants were looked into and rectified, with minor adjustments, which is claimed to be a normal procedure and the same is attributable to normal wear when the vehicle is used. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have also taken objection to the effect that the vehicle in question has been purchased in the name of Complainant No.2, which is a firm for commercial purpose; hence, the present complaint is not maintainable on this ground too. The Opposite Parties has also denied the fact that their Engineers or Workshop attendants had taken a try of the vehicle and opined that the vehicle in question had an inherent manufacturing defect. Even to contest the claim that the contents of the para about the complaint made to the answering Opposite Parties is false and frivolous, The answering Opposite Parties have annexed Annexure R-1 (the service history of the vehicle), to support their claim of the visits of the vehicle to their Workshop and the work attended to by them. The answering Opposite Parties, thus, claims that on 5.12.2009, the vehicle in question reported with the Opposite Parties in a job card dated 5.12.2009 was opened at 4931 Kms for 2nd free service; however, wheel alignment and balancing was refused by the Complainant for the reasons best known to him alone. It was a scheduled service and the Complainants cooked up a false story to lay unfounded claims. The vehicle in question was serviced on 15.6.2010 at M/s Hind Motors for 3rd free service at 15500 Kms. Thereafter, it was again got serviced for running repairs on 12.7.2010 and 21.01.2011 at 18346 Kms. and 29219 Kms respectively, and on these occasions, it was an accidental job. The vehicle was duly repaired, and a copy of the details is annexed at Annexure R-2. Thus, there is no question of replacement of vehicle in question, as there was no defect in the same. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is supported by detailed affidavit of Mr.Dinesh Chawla, Works Manager, Joshi Autozone Pvt. Limited. 3. The Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, reiterating the stand taken by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. At the same time, answering Opposite Parties have also claimed that all the responsibilities towards them have got transferred to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their capacity as Agents of answering Opposite Parties on principal-to-principal basis, as per the agreement between them and the allegations of the Complainant with regard to any thing i.e. covered under the warranty terms and conditions have been attended to as and when such problem arose. In the present circumstances, in the absence, of any expert report or opinion from a recognized laboratory, no deficiency in service can be made out on mere assumptions by the Complainant. The answering Opposite Parties have annexed R-3/1, which is the record of service schedule. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part or unfair trade practice, the Opposite Parties prays for dismissal of the present complaint, with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 is supported by detailed affidavit of Mr.M.S. Pradeep, Senior Manager Law, Tata Motors Limited. 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. We have minutely gone through the complaint of Complainants, and from the averments of this complaint, it has come to light, that the vehicle, in question, registered in the name of Opposite Party No.2, has actually been purchased by Opposite Party No.1, by an agreement that has been effected between Opposite Party No.1 and 2, whereby the value of the vehicle has been shared by both the parties, and Opposite Party No.1 was paying his part of consideration, through his salary, and as the vehicle was being personally used by Opposite Party No.1, we do not doubt the qualification of the Complainant No.1, being a consumer, qua the Opposite Parties. Thus, the objections of the Opposite Parties that the vehicle is being used for commercial purpose by the Complainants is out rightly ignored. 6. As far as the allegations of the Complainants about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, are concerned, we have gone through the service records brought on record by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as well as 3 & 4 and on perusal of these, it is established that the vehicle, in question, was serviced by Opposite Party No.1, while the free services were availed by the Complainants, as well as the problems raised by the Complainant about the steering system pulling to one side, and some noises emanating from the vehicle, were registered. The Opposite Parties on their part had tried to solve these problems, and make necessary job work i.e. wheel alignments, check ups and adjustments, on each such occasion, when the same was brought to their notice. 7. It is also found that on two different occasions, at the time of second free service, front wheel alignments check and adjustment and wheel balancing were refused by the customer (Complainant). Thus, in these circumstances, if the Complainant himself did not want the defects to be removed, and by keeping the issue alive, had written numerous letters to the different offices of the Opposite Parties, would not create an obligation on the Opposite Parties for which they could be blamed for being deficient in service. 8. It is also important to notice that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have categorically stated in Para 3 (Pg.7) that the vehicle in question had on one occasion met with a serious accident and was actually repaired at Hind Motors Limited and the third free service was also got done from this very authorized agent of the Opposite Parties No. 3 and 4. The Complainant has however preferred not to disclose this event and at the same time has not refuted the allegations of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 by either denying it by way of filing replication to their reply/ version, in order to rebut the same. Hence, we feel the counter allegation of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has not disclosed material facts related to the problem has gone unrebutted. 9. Even if we believe the allegations of the Complainant that the vehicle in question still has the problems cited by him, then, it was incumbent upon the Complainant alone to bring an independent expert opinion with regard to these defects for us to believe that the problems still persisted after numerous efforts of the Opposite Parties, and that the Opposite Parties have failed to rectify the same. Thus, in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence, the allegations of the Complainant about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties are not made out. 10. In the light of above observations, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 31st August, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
