Date of Filling : 09.12.2013.
Date of Disposal : 28.01.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.
PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.Sc., … MEMBER - I
CC.68/2013
Thursday the 28th day of January 2016
Thiru. R. Jayaraman,
S/o. Thiru. A. Ramanujam,
No.20, Duraisamy Pillai Street,
West Tambaram,
Chennai - 45. … Complainant.
/ Versus /
1. Tata Motors Ltd.,
Registered Office at Bombay House,
No.24, Homi Mudi Street,
Mumbai - 400 018.
2. Tata Motors Ltd.,
International Business,
Block - A, Shivasagar Estate,
Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli,
Mumbai - 400 018.
3. CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LIMITED,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
No.79-80-81, (SP), AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
AMBATTUR,
CHENNAI - 58. … Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 12.01.2016 in the presence of Thiru. R. Dinakaran, Counsel for Complainant and Tmt. V. Annalakshmi, Counsel for the 3rd Opposite party, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are Set Exparte for non appearance and for non filing of Written Version and upon hearing arguments of Complainant and the 3rd Opposite party, having perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 seeking direction that the opposite parties to rectify the defects to the vehicle Tata Safari bearing No.TN 07 B.H. 3666 without any charges and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the deficiency in service with cost.
- The brief averments of the complaint as follows:-
The complainant is possessing TATA SAFARIES and TATA SUMOS for his personal use and for his company purpose. The said vehicles were periodically sent to the service station of the opposite party at Injambakkam and Ambattur in Chennai city duly pointing out the repairs to be carried out on the vehicle. Later, it was noticed that the vehicles were sent monthly twice for carrying out the same repairs which were pointed out at the first instant. But the regular charges were levied without carrying out the repairs. For instance, the complainant wish to inform that Tata Safari bearing No. TN 07 BH 3666 was sent to Ambattur workshop on 03.08.2013 for carrying out certain repairs. The service mechanic / Manager of Ambattur workshop had telephoned to the office of the complainant, during the last week of August, directed him to pay Rs.83767.40 as service charges and take delivery of the vehicle, as he has attended the repairs. The driver of the vehicle along with the mechanic of the complainant’s office attended the Ambattur workshop on 18.09.2013 to take delivery of the vehicle. At the time of inspection of the vehicle, it is noticed that none of his complaints were carried out by the workshop. It is so pointed to note that the Ambattur workshop of the opposite party has produced the bill for Rs.83,767.40 without attending any repairs / complaints to the said vehicle.
- The service mechanic / Manager of Ambattur workshop could not understand that without attending any repairs why the Officer in charge of the Ambattur workshop has demanded Rs.83,767.40. It is totally unfair on their part. If this is the case, the complainant hopes that the reputation of the company / image of the company will be getting spoiled by the activities of their staff in the workshop. There is no proper response and cordial relationship by the staff in the workshop. In view of deficiency in service, the complainant has caused legal notice on 20.09.2013 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 pointing out the above Manager Mr. P. Karthikeyan, and Mr. A.S. Mukherjee, Assistant General Manager, Mumbai corporate have replied on 21.09.2013 that the matter has been placed before the Regional Office, Chennai and also to the customer care team, to get the issue resolved at the earliest. Then on 23.09.2013 the complainant has received a letter from the said Karthikeyan, that the vehicle was brought to the workshop in breakdown condition, with value latch broken condition, and that the affected parts like timing kit, RFF & HLA, cylinder Head cover injectors were replaced to bring the vehicle on road, and also mentioned that though the engine is starting still the vehicle’s performance is not satisfactory and the head needs to be removed for further diagnosing the defect and taking corrective action. Further he has admitted that the service was not carried out for the vehicle as recommended by him and other officers. Inspite of that there is no response on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Hence, this complaint.
- The contention of the written version by the 3rd opposite party as brief as follows:-
The 3rd opposite party denies all the various allegations made in the complaint is false, baseless and incorrect except those allegations that are admitted herein.The complainant is not a consumer, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone.The vehicle was purchased by the complainant in June 2010, but it is not correct to state that from the date of purchase the complainant has promptly leaving the vehicle for free and paid services.Oninspection of the vehicle by the service engineers of the answering opposite party, it was found that the complainant had services the vehicle at various service centers from the beginning, the complainant also did not produce any documents relating to he earlier servicing done, but accepting in the complaint that he spent about Rs.75,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month for the same, and the answering opposite party was not aware whether such services were carried out at the Authorized service centers of the manufacturer TATA Motors.
- The vehicle in dispute came to the answering opposite party on 03.08.2013 1,32,552 kms. after 3½ years from the date of purchase, under breakdown condition through towing support. Hence the vehicle condition can be identified only after starting the engine. It was noticed by the answering opposite party that the timing belt was cut and Engine Valve latch has also broken. After both the rectification, Injector was not working. Hence the condition of the vehicle was clearly explained to the complainant and after getting the approval from Mr. Vedanarayanan through E-mail on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party replaced the recon injector, carried out the repair works, replaced the parts.
- After replacing the parts only the vehicle is in starting condition and the opposite party found that the Engine noise was abnormal. For this the opposite party need to do the repair work in VALVE TAPET. As per the mail confirmation from the complainant, the answering opposite party have dismantled the mentioned components and awaiting for the complainant’s approval for a long time. The same was communicated to the complainant over several phone calls, letters and E-mail dated: 22.10.2013. But till now the 3rd opposite party have not received any communication on approval from the complainant and now as an after thought to avoid payment of the Proforma invoice amount, the complainant had filed this complaint.
- That only to evade the payment of the bill amount, now the complainant has invented a new story that the opposite party without attending any repairs / complaints has produced the bill amount. Actually, it was not so and it was the imagination of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the party of the 3rd opposite party in providing the service to the complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In order to prove the case on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and Exhibit A1 to A7 are marked. While so, on the side of the 3rd opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed along with the documents which are marked as Exhibit B1 and B3.
9. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint?
10. Written arguments submitted by both sides and the copies are furnished to either side. In addition to that oral arguments adduced on both sides.
11. Point No.1:-
Regarding this point, on careful perusal of rival submissions put forth on either side, it is needless to say that it is the settled position that the complainant is having bounden duty to prove his complaint by means of acceptable and constant evidence. At the outset, the duty cast upon this Forum to decide, as to whether the complainant has done his duty properly. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the 3rd opposite party, it is an admitted fact that the vehicle Tata Safari bearing No.TN 07 BH 3666 was sent to the workshop belonging to the 3rd opposite party on 03.08.2013 for certain repairs, for which the job slip was issued by the 3rd opposite party is marked as Ex.A1 and Proforma invoice to that effect issued by the 3rd opposite party is marked as Ex.A2. The complainant further stated in his proof affidavit that as per the directions of the service Manager of the 3rd Opposite party the driver of the complainant along with the mechanic attended the workshop on 18.09.2013 for taking delivery of the above vehicle. But it was shock and surprise to note that without attending any repairs the 3rd opposite party has produced the Ex.A2 which is totally unfair on the part of the 3rd opposite party and therefore the complainant had issued letters viz., Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 to the opposite parties. The reply sent by the Customer Care Team, Mumbai is marked as Ex.A5 & Ex.A6 respectively. The complainant further narrated that in spite of Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 sent to the opposite parties there was no response on the part of the 3rd opposite party, without any alternative the complainant has come forward this complaint.
12. While so, the opposite party contented that there is no iota of truth in the complaint and in fact the complainant has suppressed the real facts that on 03.08.2013 at 1,32,552 kms., after 3½ years from the date of purchase the vehicle was taken over to the workshop under breakdown condition and the condition of the vehicle was clearly explained to the complainant and after getting approval from Mr. Vedanarayanan through E-mail on behalf of the complainant which is marked as Ex.B2 and thereafter replacing the relevant parts and further it needs to do the repair work the vehicle was dismantled and awaiting for complainant’s approval for a long time and the same was communicated to him over phone calls, letters and E-mail which are marked as Ex.B1 & B2 series.
13. Even there after the complainant has not sent any approval but per contra to avoid payment of the Proforma invoice amount, the complainant has filed this false complaint without any basis. It is further contended by the 3rd opposite party that the complainant is not at all a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and in this aspect also the complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the said act, since he had ran the said vehicle only for commercial purposes not for his livelihood at any cost. Furthermore, it is stated by the 3rd opposite party that as per the terms and conditions the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.100/- per day from 17.08.2013 till date when he is going to take back delivery of the vehicle as per Ex.B3.
14. At this point of time, it is crystal clear that though the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint but actually the complainant has not produced any bit of evidence to show that the 3rd opposite party has not at all done any repairs as mentioned in the complaint except Ex.A3 & Ex.A4. At the outset, as per contention raised by the 3rd opposite party the vehicle was taken over to the 3rd opposite party’s workshop only on breakdown condition which is clearly seen from the job slip Ex.A1 which is marked on the side of the complainant in which it is clearly mentioned in the job slip as ‘breakdown’. But per contra, with his own documents (Ex.A1) it is alleged by the complainant in the complaint that it is a new story cooked up by the 3rd opposite party. If it is so, on seeing Ex.A6 sent by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant it is categorically mentioned that the said vehicle was brought to the workshop in breakdown condition with value latch broken condition and the affected parts like timing kit, RFF &HLA, cylinder Head cover injectors were replaced to bring the vehicle on road. It is further mentioned by the 3rd opposite party, that the further repairs awaiting for the approval of the complainant and the cost involved. In such circumstances, there is no document produced on the side of the complainant to deny the said fact.
15. In furtherance, as per averments made by the complainant that when the driver of the vehicle along with mechanic to take delivery of the said vehicle Tata Safari TN 07 BH 3666 it was noted down that none of the repairs have done. But to that effect neither the driver nor the mechanic or any other person has been examined on the side of the complainant to prove the same. Mere averments made in the complaint are not sufficient to that effect for taking into consideration. Similarly, the complainant did not produce any document relating to the earlier servicing done and whether such services were carried out at the authorized service centers of the manufacturer TATA Motors. It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was ran to the extent of 1,32,552 kms. and completed nearly 3½ years from the date of purchase as on 03.08.2013.
16. At this juncture, it is the duty of this Forum to concentrate the fact stated by the complainant that the Commissioner appointed by this Forum reported that at the time of inspection it was found that there is no engine in the said vehicle and in absence of the engine in the vehicle he could not submit his report with regard to road worth condition. In this aspect, this Forum wants to enlighten that it is a known fact that and it was intimated by the 3rd opposite party regarding the dismantle through E-mail and requested for further approval and therefore the said report is no way helpful to the complainant’s plea. Furthermore the warranty period also expired already as rightly pointed out by the 3rd opposite party. Hence the complainant has no right to claim to rectify the defect without any charges.
17. The next point to be taken to the consideration is that as whether the complainant is a consumer? under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Regarding this it is noticed that even in the complaint it is mentioned that the said vehicle has been utilized for company purpose. Therefore the complainant has failed to prove that the above said vehicle was solely utilized for his livelihood . Hence there is no relevant materials to show that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the said act 1986 since, there is some materials to bring into picture that the said vehicle has been used for commercial purpose.
18. In the light of the above fact and circumstances of this case, this Forum can easily come to conclusion that the complainant has not proved the allegations made in the complaint and the deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
19. Point No.2:-
In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, this complainant is not entitled to have any benefit as prayed in the complaint and answered this point accordingly.
20. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 28th January 2016.
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 / Dt.03.02.2013: Xerox copy of job slip.
Ex.A2 / Dt.05.08.2013: Xerox copy of Proforma Invoice given by the opposite party.
Ex.A3 / Dt.20.092013: Xerox copy of the Complainant’s letter to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4 / Dt.20.092013: Xerox copy of the Complainant’s letter to the 2st opposite party.
Ex.A5 / Dt.21.09.2013: Acknowledgement and reply by A.S. Mukherjee through E-mail.
Ex.A6 / Dt.23.09.2013: Acknowledgement and reply by P. Karthikeyan through E-mail.
Ex.A7 / Dt.06.12.2013: Original General Power Deed
List of documents filed by the 3rd Opposite party:-
Ex.B1 / Dt.16.12.2013: Xerox copy of Letter sent by RPAD to the complainant.
Ex.B2
Series / Dt. : E-mails sent by the 3rd opposite party and the reply mail by the
complainant on various dates.
Ex.B3 / Dt. : Terms and conditions given by the 3rd opposite party.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
