BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.25 of 2015.
Date of Instt.: 13.02.2015.
Date of Decision: 15.03.2017.
Prem Kumar Kamboj Advocate son of Shri Sewa Ram aged 65 years, resident of House No.6, Street No.2 Ratia Road, Professor Colony, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Tata Motors, Bombay House 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai, Pin 400001 through its Authorized Signatory/Manager Director. 2.M/s Telemose Automobiles Pvt. Limited Opp.Vidhut Nagar, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Proprietor/Partner. 3.M/s Chandrawali Automobiles, Chandigarh Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/Partner. 4.United India Insurance Company Branch Office Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.
..Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act,1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President. Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for opposite party No.1. Sh. R.K.Tayal, Advocate for opposite party No.2. Sh. Sant Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.3. Sh. N.D.Mittal, Advocate for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as Ops).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that complainant had sold his car Maruti Alto through the authorized dealer M/s Telmos Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Sirsa in the month of May, 2012 keeping in the exchange offer advertised in news paper and thereafter he had purchased a new car Tata Indigo ecs on 28.06.2012. The complainant had paid part amount of the balance amount in cash and some amount was paid after raising loan from State Bank of India, Fatehabad. He got the vehicle in question registered vide registration No.HR22H-2474. It has been further averred that the vehicle was having four years warranty besides two years extended warranty/ warranty upto 35000 KMs. The vehicle ran properly upto 27,000 KM but thereafter it started raising loud noise in running condition, therefore, the complainant got inspected the same and came to know that it all happened due to non-working of shockers. After that the complainant visited OP No.2 and requested to redress his grievance but it refused to do the needful, however, it agreed to replace the shockers of the vehicle by charging Rs.6500/-. The complainant had paid Rs.4,000/- and it was intimated to him that his claim qua one shocker had been accepted by the company. It has been further averred that the complainant got replaced the tyres of the vehicle from Madaan Tyre House, GT Road, Fatehabad by spending Rs.9,000/- and after that he got serviced his vehicle from OP No.3 on 15.11.2014 when the vehicle had run 30520 KM. It has been further averred that the OP No.2 had failed to replace the shockers as well as tyres of the vehicle during warranty period, therefore, the complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also suffered financial loss. The complainant requested the Ops to make the payment of Rs.4,000/- and Rs.9,000/- alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- many a times but to no avail. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C18.
3. Upon notice, Ops appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the vehicles manufactured by it are thoroughly inspected by control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory to authorized dealers and all the dealers have dedicated workshops in order to attend any breakdown in the vehicles. It has been further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as OP No.2 is carrying its business at Hisar. The complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands because as per Clause No.1 of the terms and conditions the warranty was valid for 24 months from the date of sale of car or 75000 Kms which occurs earlier and in the present case the warranty qua the vehicle had already lapsed on 28.06.2014. It has also been further submitted that the complainant had not paid any consideration for extended warranty to OP No.1 and the matter qua extended warranty was related to United India Insurance Company. The relationship between the Ops exists on principal to principal basis and the OP No.1 cannot be held liable for any independent act and omission committed by the other Ops. The complainant had brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP No.2 on 11.09.2014 with carriage noise and at that time the vehicle had run 27084 Kms which is beyond the manufacturer’s warranty, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1. It has been further submitted that the warranty of the vehicle of the complainant had already expired and the complainant had carried out the service of the vehicle when it had run 30520 Kms. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.2 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal, maintainability, suppression of material facts from this Forum and jurisdiction etc. It has been further submitted that tyres and other rubber parts of the vehicle do not come under warranty and the shockers of the vehicle were depreciated due to bad driving skills. The OP No.2 had charged Rs.4,000/- per shocker from the complainant but after giving discount both the shockers were changed on this cost. It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 as it had never misbehaved with the complainant. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
5. Op No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It has been further submitted that the Op No.3 has no concern with the manufacturing of the vehicle in question as it is only service station of Telmos company and the complainant had got serviced his vehicle on 15.11.2014 and that too was done upto the satisfaction of the complainant. It has been further submitted that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3. Prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.
6. OP No.4 in its reply has submitted that no extended warranty/insurance policy was either issued to the complainant or to the OP No.1. The extended warranty document had not been issued by the insurance company as it was issued by the dealer and the same is not a policy document. It has been further submitted that it might be a sort of advertisement or an agreement executed between the dealer and customer, therefore, on the basis of vague and incomplete document no liability can be fastened upon the insurance company. It has also been further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of insurance company as it is a dispute between the customer and the seller of car and the Ops No.1 & 2, at this stage, cannot skip from the liability towards the consumer. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Gupta as Ex.RW1/A. affidavit of Sh.M.K.Bipin as Ex.RW2 and documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.
7. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in the replies and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. It is not disputed that the shockers of the vehicle did not work properly, therefore, OP No.2 replaced the same and also charged Rs.4,000/- (Annexure C4) from the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant had got the tyres of the vehicle replaced from Madaan Tyre House by paying Rs.9000/- (Annexure C2). The grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle in question was under the period of extended warranty but despite that the OPs did not redress his grievance, as they had failed to replace the shockers and the tyres of the vehicle, forcing him to approach this Forum. On the other hand, the OP No.1 had come with the plea that the warranty of the vehicle was valid for 24 months from the date of sale of the car or 75000 Kms which occurs earlier and the manufacturer’s warranty thereof had already lapsed on 28.06.2014 and the complainant had not availed the facility of extended warranty. The defence of Op No.2 is that the tyres and other rubber parts of the vehicle do not come within warranty and the shockers of the vehicle deprecated due to bad driving skills. OP No.3 claimed itself as only a service station by submitting that it has no concern with the manufacturing of the vehicle. Though the Op No.3 has admitted that it had done service of the vehicle on 15.11.2014 upto the satisfaction of the complainant. Op No.4 has specifically endorsed that no extended warranty/insurance policy was either issued to the complainant to the OP No.1 and the extended warranty document was issued by the dealer and it cannot be termed as a policy document. It has been further stressed that the present dispute relates to the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2 and the insurance company has no role to play in the same.
9. The plea of the complainant that he had obtained extended warranty finds support from a document issued by OP No.2, which has been placed file as Mark-1 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that Duration of Cover: 24 Months Extended Warranty in addition to the Manufacturers Warranty. On this very document policy number 100098127 and description of the vehicle in question has also been written but the Op No.4-insruance company has specifically denied that any document qua extended warranty had been issued to the complainant. Perusal of Annexure C7 reveals that as per clause No.1 of the warranty terms and conditions issued by the manufacturer i.e. Owner’s Manual & Service Book The warranty was valid for 24 months from the date of sale of car or 75000 Kms which occurs earlier.
10. After going through the material available on the case file this Forum is of the considered opinion that the vehicle of the complainant was under extended warranty period, as per document Mark-1 issued by Op No.2, when its tyres and shockers were replaced. The Op No.2 is a dealer of Op No.1 and the document Mark-1 is also issued by it, therefore, at this stage it cannot shirk from its liability to replace the shockers and tyres of the vehicle. Moreover, in document Annexure C18 in the column of extended warranty it has been mentioned that Suspension Shock absorbers bush/mechanical failures, control arms, upper and lower wishbones, sprints, sub frame. Any claim is limited to 35000 Kms only. Undisputedly, the complainant had got replaced the tyres and shockers of the vehicle, when the vehicle had run below 35000 KMs, but that had been replaced by paying consideration thereof by him. The plea of the complainant that the tyres of the vehicle got damaged due to not-working of shockers properly also find support from Annexure C13 (Copy of email/correspondence) addressed to complainant wherein it has been clearly mentioned that During your last visit in Workshop on 11th September, 2014, complaining for both rear tyres wearing, after observation we found that both shock observers were getting hard causing noise and tyre wearing. In the present case it is clearly established that Op No.1 (manufacture of the vehicle in question), Op No.3 (service station) and the Op No.4 insurance company has no relation with document Mark-1 being issued by Op No.2. Learned counsel for the Op No.4 also intimated to this Forum that the policy No.100098127 written on Mark-1 does not find any relation with extended warranty being not issued by it.
11. Another plea of the Op No.2 that the shockers of the vehicle were deprecated due to bad driving skills is also not corroborated by any authentic and reliable evidence rather this plea appears to have been taken to fill the lacuna and to avoid its liability qua redressing the genuine complaints of the complainant. The Op No.2 did not replace the shockers of the vehicle free of costs despite the fact that the vehicle was under extended warranty period and had charged Rs.4,000/- on account of replacement of the shockers. The act and conduct of OP No.2 is clearly against the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the Op No.2/dealer is ordered to refund the amount of Rs.4,000/- charged by it from the complainant along with the amount of Rs.9,000/- spent by the complainant for replacement of the tyres besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and litigation expenses. It is ordered accordingly. The complaint against OP Nos.1, 3 and 4 is dismissed. However, OP No.1 is given liberty to recover the amount of 13,000/- (Rs.4,000/- and Rs.9,000/-) from the OP No.4, in case it proves, at any stage, that the Op No.4 has provided extended warranty qua the vehicle in dispute as undertaken by OP No.4 in its reply. Order be complied within one month failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced:
Dt.15.03.2017 (Raghbir Singh)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
