Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he purchased a brand new car make Tata Zest XT Diesel, bearing RC No.PB-10-GD-9096, engine No.101A20000618161, Chassis No.MAT624051 GPD13786 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No.VS/787 daed 24.02.2017 for consideration of Rs.8,15,000/- out of which the complainant made Rs.5,18,000/- on the date of purchase and remaining Rs.3 lakhs was got financed from Tata Motors Finance Limited. Further alleges that within days of purchasing the said car from Opposite Party No.1, the complainant came to now that at the time of delivery of car in question, it was claimed by the Opposite Party No.1 that the car in question is December, 2016 manufactured and same is corroborated from RC of the said car, but actually, said car is of April 2016 manufactured and this fact can be confirmed from the Chassis number of the car. Not only this, prior to the purchase of the car in question, it had already run 77 KMs as shown by its speedometer, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the said facts. Further, within two days after the purchase of the said car, several problems started showing up in the car and even while moving at normal speed on highways, over bridges and at hilly areas, its speed automatically reduces and the car has missing problem. The complainant approached the office of Opposite Party No.1 several times with same and additional problems/ defects, but the Opposite Party No.1 miserably failed to rectify the same rather referred the complainant to Opposite Party No.3 its authorized Tata motors dealer, but Opposite Party No.3 also failed to resolve the issue to the utter dismay of the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the car in question with a brand new car of similar segment or to return its price of Rs.5,18,000/- alongwith an amount of rs.60,150/- paid by the complainant till date to the finance company and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs.2 lakhs or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
4. Complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 not admitted.
5. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that as per the records, maintained by the Opposite Parties, the complainant did not report any problem in the vehicle in question. Said vehicle was firstly brought on 30.04.2017 at 5500 Kms for availing First Free Service and at that time, the complainant did not report any complaint in the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was brought on 04.08.2017 at 12863 Ksm for Air Filter replacement and subsequently, the vehicle in question was brought on 08.08.2017 at 12890 Kms for availing Second Free Service. At that time two, the complainant did not report any problem in the vehicle in question and in this way, the complainant is levelling false allegations without relying on any documentary evidence. The complainant has filed baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. On merits, Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Hence, the instant complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed with costs.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1 and Ex.CW2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 also tendered into evidence the affidavits Ex.RA2 to R2/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
9. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.2 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not the denial of the case that complainant purchased a brand new car make Tata Zest XT Diesel, bearing RC No.PB-10-GD-9096, engine No.101A20000618161, Chassis No.MAT624051 GPD13786 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No.VS/787 daed 24.02.2017 for consideration of Rs.8,15,000/- out of which the complainant made Rs.5,18,000/- on the date of purchase and remaining Rs.3 lakhs was got financed from Tata Motors Finance Limited. In his complaint, the complainant has pleaded the manufacturing defect in the car in question. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as per the records, maintained by the Opposite Parties, the complainant did not report any problem in the vehicle in question. Said vehicle was firstly brought on 30.04.2017 at 5500 Kms for availing First Free Service and at that time, the complainant did not report any complaint in the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the vehicle in question was brought on 04.08.2017 at 12863 Ksm for Air Filter replacement and subsequently, the vehicle in question was brought on 08.08.2017 at 12890 Kms for availing Second Free Service. At that time two, the complainant did not report any problem in the vehicle in question and in this way, the complainant is levelling false allegations without relying on any documentary evidence. The complainant has filed baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant has failed to produce any iota of evidence to prove that there occurred any problem/ defect in the car in question. Moreover, during the free services of the car in question, the complainant has nowhere brought these problems/ defect in question or any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, neither the complainant has ever produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from any problems or to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr (1 (2010) CPJ 19 NC for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of manufacturing defects in he vehicle made in the complaint. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove any defect/ problem or manufacturing defect in the car in question. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
