Date of Filing 06.01.2023

                                                                                                     Date of Disposal: 27.09.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),       …….PRESIDENT

THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                         ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.16/2023

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 27^thDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

Mrs.B.Sripriya, S/o.Balasubraminian,

No.1, J-6, ArihantEsta,

No.370, Church Road,

Mogappair, Chennai -600 037......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.M/s.TATA Motors Limited (Legal),

Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.82, Mahakali Caves Road,

MIDC,Andheri East, Mumbai 400 093.

2.M/s. Sree Lakshmi Auto Enterprises India Private Limited,

   Rep. by its Managing Director,

   Plot No.67, Developed flats,

AmbatturIndustrial Estate,

   Near Vavin Junction,

Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.…..Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the complainant: Mr.V.JohnsonYuvaraj, Advocate

Counsel for the 1^stopposite party: Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                  : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 21.09.2023in the presence of Mr.V.JohnsonYuvaraj, counsel for the Complainant and Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, counsel for the 1^stopposite party and 2^nd opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance and for non-filing of written version and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective vehicle along with a prayer to replace the complainant's car TATA SAFARI XZA+-7STR Dark bearing Registration No.TN-13-Z-3033 with a brand new same model car and to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with cost of the complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that she had intended to purchase a brand new luxury car and hence visited the 2^nd opposite party's showroom who was the authorized dealer of the 1^stopposite party. After consulting the sales team of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant purchased a car TATA SAFARI XZA+-7STR Dark bearing Registration No.TN-13-Z-3033 & engine No.463438414202088 with chassis No.MAT631590NWH66747 from them on 23.09.2022. On 18.10.2022 at about 11am when the complainant's husband started the car, it did not start and the same was immediately informed to the 2^nd opposite party. Despite after several verifications and check-ups by the technician of the 2^nd opposite party, he was unable to find the reasons for not starting theengine of the subject car. On 19.10.2022 one technician namely Mr.Sasidharan called the complainant and informed that a part of subject car namely Body Control Module was completely short-circuited which burnt the entire wiring/electric of the subject car which resulted in the car not starting. Further 2^nd opposite party informed that for rectification and repair of the subject car, they quoted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was very huge and excessive. In this regard the complainant's husband sent an email dated 21.10.2022 to get the status of the subject car for which the 2^nd opposite party replied by email dated 22.10.2022 stating that they placed order to get the new parts for the subject car. The said information was shock to the complainant and then when asked for their confirmation that the same defect would not repeat in future for which the 2^nd opposite party responded negatively. However they informed that the said quoted amount would be covered under warrantee. Due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle the complainant suffered mental agony and hardship. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice dated 25.10.2022 to both the opposite parties requesting them for replacement with another brand new vehicle together with damages of compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards mental agony and untold sufferings. After rectifying the defect the complainant took delivery of the subject vehicle on 02.11.2022. When the complainant started to use the subject vehicle lot of noise was heard in the steering wheel and the sensor for the door lock did not work properly which constrains the complainant to send an email dated 05.11.2022 stating the problems along with mileage issues. At the time of purchasing the subject vehicle the 2^nd opposite party informed and confirmed that the subject vehicle would give mileage more than 10km per litre but due to the manufacturing defect the mileage was given below 5km per litre.Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to replace the complainant's car with a brand new same model car, to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the negligent and deficiency in service along with the cost of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 1" opposite party:-

3. The 1" opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegation contending interalia that the name of the company Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited ought to be impleaded in place of 1" opposite party and the company M/s.Tata Motors Limited be deleted from the array of parties. It was submitted by the 1" opposite party that the vehicles manufactured by them pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the vehicles were marketed only after being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. The vehicle manufactured at the plant of the opposite party were also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a 'Principal to Principal basis' for sale of the vehicle. The customers of all passenger cars manufactured by the 1" opposite party were provided services through a large network of around 119 authorized dealers, 245 Tata Authorized Service Centres, 219 Tata Authorized Service Points and 222 Tata Authorized Service Outlets workshops. The complainant had made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and deficiency inservice without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The car purchased by the complainant is a well-established product in the market and over a period of years the consumers were using the product and the complainant had taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the car and is performance. It was submitted that the said car was delivered after carrying out of Pre-Delivery Inspection by the dealer. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that all vehicles manufactured by the opposite party were marketed only after the prototype of the car being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. Whenever any car reports to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, the complaints of the customer were recorded in the job card which do not imply admission of any defects in the car but a mere representation of the customer's grievances on the said car. Thereafter standard checks were carried out at the workshop and observations were recorded by the service Advisor on the backside of the job card. It helps the concerned workshop to provide necessary advice regarding the condition of the car to the customer. The car as attended by the opposite party's service points fully complied with the warranties, assurances and specifications. The complainant has purchased the car on or around 23.09.2022 from an authorized dealership of the opposite party and the said vehicle in question till 21.01.2023 has covered around 1074 km and it manifests that the vehicle in question within a period of 4 months had covered 268 km per month. The said car was in absolute roadworthy condition and the jobs carried out on the car were minor and running repairs which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the said car. The opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by thecomplainant under the warranty as and when reported. Therefore the prayers as made by the complainant for replacement of the car or refund of the price of the said car were untenable and unsustainable. The relationship exists between the opposite parties was on 'Principal to principal basis. It was submitted that the opposite party could not be held liable for any independent act and omission committed by the other opposite party. Thus for the act of the one opposite party another opposite party could not be held vicariously liable. The onus lies on the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated under section 39 could be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant. In the present case, it was crystal clear that there was no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant or deficiency in service on the part of the 1" opposite party. The manufacturer's warranty for the subject vehicle clearly states that the warranty shall be limited to repair and replacement of the parts found to be defective if any upon being brought to the notice of the manufacturer. There was absolutely no defect in the vehicle and the complains raised by the complainant has been resolved by necessary repairs. The complainant has baselessly alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle without producing any cogent expert report from an Authorized Laboratory defined under the Consumer Protection Act and in the absence of same the allegation of manufacturing defects in the vehicle holds no merit. The vehicle was brought for servicing for minor and running repairs only and each time it was attended and made roadworthy. It was submitted that the said vehicle in question till 21.01.2023 has covered around 1074 km and it manifests that the vehicle in question within a period of 4 months, had covered 268 km per month whichindicates that the vehicle was in absolute roadworthy and perfectly usable condition. Thus the 1" opposite party sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A8 were submitted. On the side of 1" opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were submitted. Though notice was received to the 2^nd opposite party he did not appear and file any written version and hence was called absent and set exparte on 18.04.2023 for non-appearance and non-filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

5. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant resulting in deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. Copy of welcome letter was marked as Ex.A1;
2.  Tax Invoice dated 23.09.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Card Receipt vouchers dated 23.09.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Copy of Insurance Policy dated 26.09.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 25.10.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Acknowledgement cards was marked as Ex.A6;
7. Tax Invoice dated 01.11.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
8. Email communications was marked as Ex.A8;

The following documents were filed on the side of opposite party in proofof their defence;

1. Copy of the Office Order dated 01.01.2022 was marked as Ex.81;
10. Copy of the Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to change of name wasmarked as Ex.B2;
11. Copy of warranty policy was marked as Ex.B3;
12.  Job Cards were marked as Ex.B4 to Ex.811;

6. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a car vide Tax Invoice (Ex.A2) for a sum of Rs.22,62,599/- from the 2^nd opposite party manufactured by the 1" opposite party. Even on the first day the vehicle did not start and the same was complained to the opposite party which was later rectified. Even than the vehicle was continuously giving problem so that every time the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party and later on it was delivered to the complainant. The complainant was also made to spend around Rs.1,00,000/- for rectification of the Body Control Module though the said amount was later on covered under warranty. The complainant on enquiry with some other technicians/workshops came to know that even after the repairs were rectified the same defects would arise in future unless the exact reason for the defect was found. Thus the complainant issued a legal notice seeking for replacement of a brand new car with Rs.50,00,000/- compensation for which there was no response from them. The vehicle was also not giving the promised mileage of 10 kms and was making lot of noise from the steering wheel and also sensor for the door lock was not worked properly. Thus stating that due to the supply of a defective car the opposite parties committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant suffered mental agony. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

7. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party argued that as on today the vehicle was running in a good condition and that no expert evidence as per section 38(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 was produced by the complainant to prove the alleged manufacturing defects. It was his argument that the vehicle was delivered after stringent quality checks and trials and hence he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

8. On perusal and appreciation of the available pleadings and materials produced by both the parties, the main grievance of the complainant is that a defective vehicle with some inherent manufacturing defect was supplied to her by the opposite parties and the main defence by the 1^stopposite party is that no expert opinion/report produced by complainant to prove the inherent manufacturing defects. No Job Card was produced by the complainant but the 1^stopposite party had produced job cards Ex.B4 to Ex.B11 showing that the vehicle has undergone various repairs. It is seen that the vehicle was delivered on02.10.2022 by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. Ex.B4 Job Card shows that vehicle was entrusted to opposite parties for scheduled service and staring issue on 19.10.2022. It is evident that within one month of delivery, the vehicle had given starting problem. Vide Ex.B6 again on 17.11.2022 the vehicle was given for first free service along with complaints for steering noisy and the repair done was removal and installation of steering pump. Again on 07.12.2022 vide job card Ex B8 it is seen that the vehicle was entrusted to the opposite party for the following complaints "Scheduled service, Steering Noise, Airbag Indicator Glows Intermittently/Continous on, Door Glass Operation Hard/Pops out, Unusual Suspension Noise etc. Again on 21.01.2023 vide Ex.B10 the vehicle was given for service along with complaints of Tyres Cut. It could be seen that vide the Tax Invoice produced as documents by the 1^st opposite party, every time when the vehicle was entrusted for repairs the same was carried out within a period of 10 days. The warranty policy for the vehicle was produced by the 1^st opposite party as Ex.B3 wherein a period of two years warranty was given to the vehicle from the date of sale of the car or upto mileage of 1,00,000 kms whichever occurs earlier. Thus all the repairs have been carried out subject to the warranty issued to the vehicle.

9. It is the defence of the 1^st opposite party that no expert evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the inherent manufacturing defects. However, when it is Prima facie evident that videthe Job Cards produced by the 1^st opposite party that the vehicle history had shown a number of defects from the date of purchase no expert evidence is required to prove the inherent defects found in the vehicle. We find our view supported by the recent decision rendered byTHE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3001/2022in Hyundai Motor India Limited VsShailendraBhatnagar dated 20.04.2022 which squarely applies to the present case wherein it has been held as follows:

There are findings of the two fora about the defect in the product sold, in this case being a vehicle. This was sold with front airbags and there was frontal damage. The airbags did not deploy. The accident caused injuries to the respondent. The appellant referred to various portions from the owner's manual to contend that the impact of the collision was not sufficient to activate the sensor which in turn would have resulted in deployment of the airbags. We would not like to revisit the facts on which findings have been returned by the two fora against the appellant.  The State Commission relied on the principle of Res IpsaLoquitor to affix the liability of the manufacturers as regards defects in the airbag system, having regard to the nature of the collision. The National Commission affirmed this finding referring to certain photographs of the damaged vehicle, which showed substantial frontal damage. In such circumstances, both the aforesaid fora took the view that expert evidence was not necessary in the subject case. Such view cannot be faulted as being unreasonable, in the given facts.

In such circumstances this Commission is of the view that the vehicle sold by the opposite parties to the complainant suffers with inherent manufacturing defect and the same has been successfully proved by the complainant. This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

10. Though we have held above that the vehicle suffers with some inherent manufacturing defect it is admitted by both parties that the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition as on today and that the defects in the vehicle had been rectified free of cost.  It is also fairly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the vehicle was with him and there was no fault at present and was in a roadworthy condition. In the said circumstances the prayer for replacement of the vehicle by the complainant could not be entertained by us. However, for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant for the supply of a vehicle with certain minor defects though rectified at free of cost under warranty we award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant along with cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them jointly and severally

a) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towardscompensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27^th day of September 2023.

-Sd-                                                                                                                 -Sd- 

MEMBER-I                                                                                           PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 1^st opposite party:-

-Sd-                                                                                                                    -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT