DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Thursday the 30th day of May 2024
CC.291/2013
Complainant
Sanjeev. P.V,
Peruvaniyam Veetil (HO),
Veloor. P.O, Atholi,
Kozhikode - 673315
(By Adv. Sri. K. N. Jayakumar)
Opposite Parties
- M/s. Marina Motors India Pvt. Ltd,
Byepass Road, Pantheerankavu,
Kozhikode – 673019
- Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Ltd,
(Formally a unit of Tata Motors Ltd)
Southern Region Office, 3rd Floor,
Tutus Tower, NK Bye pass Road,
Padivattom Kochi.
- Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Ltd,
(Formally a unit of Tata Motors Ltd)
Passengers Car Business Unit,
One Indiabulls Centre,
Tower 2A&B, 20th Floor, 841,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
Jupiter Mills Compound,
Elphinstone Road (West),
Mumbai – 400013
- Tata Motors Passenger Vehicle Ltd,
(Formally a unit of Tata Motors Ltd)
1st Floor, City Mall, Near Pune University,
Ganesh Khind Road, Pune – 411007
(OP1 By Adv. Sri. Z. P. Zachariah, OP2, OP3 & OP4 By Adv. Sri. V. Krishna Memon, Sri. K. Abdussalam, Sri. Prinsun Philip)
(Name of OP2 to OP4 substituted as per order dated 21/05/2024 in IA No. 200/2023)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- On 10/03/2013 the complainant purchased a TATA Indica EV2 motor car from the first opposite party paying Rs. 4,95,791/-. The car was purchased for taxi purpose. The complainant is plying the car purchased as self-employment and he is eking his livelihood by means of the said self-employment.
- The car had already completed a run of 32,000 kilometers. Two tyres of the vehicle had to be changed and the remaining 2 are due for changing. The complainant noticed that the mileage of the tyres was low when compared to other same type of cars. The tyres used for the car were 155/50/13 model whereas the recommended model as per the instruction manual was 165/65 R 13. The opposite parties had deliberately replaced the said tyres. The complainant had to suffer huge loss as the car is not performing in good mileage. He had to purchase 3 tyres spending Rs. 11,200/-. The other 2 tyres including stepney has to be replaced which would cost Rs. 8,000/- .
- Though the complainant had approached the first opposite party several times, they were giving evasive answers. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a total amount of Rs. 31,200/- towards the value of the tyres purchased and to direct them to replace the remaining 2 tyres with new tyres of the required quality.
- The opposite parties have entered appearance and filed written version wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint.
- According to the first opposite party, who is the authorised dealer of TATA Motors at Kozhikode, they have been selling the cars in the same condition as they have received from the manufacturer. The complainant’s car was delivered to him with the same tyres on it when it was received in the showroom from the manufacturer. The manufacturer is sending the vehicle to the dealers after thorough quality check. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after pre delivery inspection. Before taking the delivery, the complainant was satisfied that the vehicle was defect free and satisfying the specifications.
- The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the consumer protection Act since he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose to use it as a taxi.
- It is true that the complainant had purchased a TATA Indica EV2 LS car from the showroom of the first opposite party. But the allegations that the tyres fitted on the car at the time of sale were not of the recommended model for the car and as a result of the same the tyres had worn out and had to be replaced at 32,000 kms of run and that the other 2 tyres are due for replacement are not true and correct and hence denied. The allegation that the opposite parties had replaced the tyres with tyres which were not suitable for the said model is false and hence denied. The normal life of a tyre of a car is 32,000 to 35,000 kms. Moreover, it was being used as a taxi and chances of wearing out of the tyres is more when compared to private cars.
- As per the specification of the manufacturer, the tyres recommended for Indica EV2 LS model are 155/80 R 13. 165/65-R 14 tyres are recommended for Indica EV2 LX cars. The allegation that the tyres were replaced is only the imagination of the complainant. The claim that the opposite parties are liable to replace all the 5 tyres is false. No loss or injury was caused to the complainant by any act of the first opposite party. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.
- In the joint written statement filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4, it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. There is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant is alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion. When the complainant had taken the vehicle to the work shop of the first opposite party at no point of time had the complainant ever complained of any major complaint to the vehicle or to the tyres nor had the service personnel noticed any such complaint to the tyres as alleged. Even if it is admitted that the tyres had developed some complaints, in terms with the warranty applicable to the vehicle for ancillary parts such as tyres etc., the manufacturer can only look in to the alleged complaints and do the needful whenever necessary. There is no manufacturing defect in the tyres. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are; 1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2) Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged? 3) Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A3 and A3(a)on the side of the complainant. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Exts C1 and C2 were also marked.
- Heard.
- Point No.1:- The opposite parties have taken a contention in the written version that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the car was purchased by him for commercial purpose to use it as a taxi.
- According to the definition of Consumer in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 a person who buys any goods for consideration is a consumer. Admittedly, the complainant herein purchased the car for consideration. But the word consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. The explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act says that Commercial purpose does not include use by a buyer of such goods exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. In this case , there is clear pleadings and evidence to the effect that the complainant has been using the car as a taxi as self- employment for the purpose of earning his livelihood. According to the complainant, the income from the same is his sole means of livelihood. So the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) is attracted in this case. Hence the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
- The allegation is that the opposite parties have deliberately and knowingly replaced the tyres of his car and fitted it with another model which is not the recommended one. If the allegation is proved to be true, the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. If so, the grievance of the complainant will come under Section 2(1)(c)(g)and (r) of the Act. The cause of action as arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint is perfectly maintainable before this Commission. Point found accordingly.
- Point No. 2 The complainant purchased a TATA Indica EV2 LS car and has been using the same. The grievance of the complainant is that the car supplied to him was fitted with tyres of the size 155/50- R 13 model whereas the recommended model of the tyres is 165/65/R-13. It is also the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties have deliberately and knowingly replaced the tyres of his car with a model which is not a recommended model.
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and he has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice, Ext A2 series are the copies of the bill, Ext A3 is the owner’s manual and service book and Ext A3(a) is the relevant page of Ext A3.
- The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Mechanical subdivision, Kozhikode, who had inspected the disputed tyres and filed Ext C1 report, was examined as PW2. Ext C2 is the copy of the summons issued to the witness. In Ext C1, it is reported that the complainant had produced 5 tyres in his office purported to be fitted in his TATA Indica V2 car at the time of purchase and on examination they were found to be 155/80 –R 13 size.
- RW1 is none other than the Customer Care Manager of the M/s TATA Motors Ltd and RW2 is the General Manager (services) of M/s Marina Motors India Pvt Ltd. They have filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version. Ext B1 is the copy of the letter dated 11/01/2014 of M/s. TATA Motors, Ext A2 is the copy of the service history of the vehicle and Ext B3 is the tax invoice dated 24/03/2012 issued to the complainant.
- The case of the complainant is that the tyres fitted in his car at the time of sale were of the size 155/50/2013 whereas the recommended model of tyres was 165/65/R13. The learned counsel for the opposite parties pointed out that as per the specification of the manufacturer the tyres recommended for Indica EV2 LS model are 155/80-R13 and this is clear and evident from the documents produced by them. Further it was pointed out that 165/65/R-14 size tyres are recommended for Indica EV2 LX car.
- On a careful consideration and scrutiny of the evidence in hand, we are of the view that the grievance of the complainant is genuine. Admittedly, the tyres fitted on the car delivered to the complainant were of the size 155/80-R 13 as can be seen from Ext B3 tax invoice. The contention of the first opposite party is that the tyres recommended for Indica EV2 LS model are 155/80-R 13 and tyre model 165/65-R14 are recommended for Indica EV2 LX car. In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at Ext A3 owner’s manual and service book pertaining to Indica V2 cars. The tyre size for Indica V2 cars are specified in page 13 of Ext A3. The tyre size is 165/65/R-13, 165/65-R 14. The tyre size of 155/80/R-13 is not mentioned therein. No distinction between TATA Indica EV2 LS and TATA Indica EV2 LX is there. Different size tyres are not recommended for the said two categories in Ext A3. If the tyre recommended for TATA Indica LX models were different from TATA Indica EV2 LX models that would have been definitely specified in Ext A3.
- Though the first opposite party has a case in the written version that the size of the tyres of the two models are different, it may be noted that the opposite parties 2 to 4 have no such case in the version. In other words, the manufacturer has no case that the size of the tyres fitted in Indica EV2 LS model and Indica EV2 LX model are different or that the tyres fitted in Indica EV2 LS model are of the size 155/80-R13.The averments and the contentions in the version of the opposite parties 2 to 4 are mainly that there is no manufacturing defect either to the vehicle or to the tyres and that the complainant had not raised any such complaint to the tyre at the time of the service. Apart from that, the manufacturer of the vehicle has no case that the tyres to be fitted in Indica EV2 LS model are of the size 155/80/R-13.
- The first opposite party has produced Ext B1 letter issued by the Area Service Manager of the manufacturer to them wherein it is stated that the tyre recommended for Indica EV2 LS car is of the size 155/80-R 13. But as we have already stated, there is no such averments or denial in the written version filed by the manufacturer. Moreover, it is only a communication in between the opposite parties. The opposite parties have no explanation as to the tyre size specified in Ext A3. Ext A3 would establish and prove the case of the complainant that the recommended model tyres were not fitted in his car at the time of delivery. The act of the opposite parties in selling and delivering the vehicle to the complainant fitting tyres of the size 155/80/R-13 instead of the tyre size 165/65/R-13 as recommended in Ext A3, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
- The complainant was not provided with the recommended model of tyres and according to him the tyres were not suitable for the car and 2 tyres had to be replaced due to wear and tear at 32,000 kms of run due to this reason. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite parties has resulted in monetary loss, mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. Point found accordingly.
- Point No. 3:- In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.291/2013 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
c) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
d) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30th day of May, 2024.
Date of Filing: 06/07/2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of the invoice.
Ext.A2 Series – Copies of the bill.
Ext.A3 - Owner’s manual and service book.
Ext.A3(a) - Relevant page of Ext A3.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext.B1 - Letter dated 11/01/2014 of M/s TATA Motors.
Ext.B2 - Copy of the service history of the vehicle.
Ext.B3 - tax invoice dated 24/03/2012 issued to the complainant.
Commission Exhibits
Ext C1 - Commission report.
Ext C2 – Copy of the summons issued to the witness.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Sanjeev. P.V (Complainant)
PW2 – Shahul Hameed
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Jibin.
RW2 – Ashok Kumar.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
