MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 1486 of 2009.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 7.3.2008, the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo Diesel LX car bearing registration No.CH04-C-9444 from OP No.3 manufactured by OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.5,43,050/- with warranty of 1 ½ year.  As per the terms and conditions of warranty policy, all the OPs were bound to attend and remove all the defects free of costs, if found in the vehicle in question, during the warranty period. It was stated that from the day one, the complainant faced problems, in the car, which were notified and informed to the OPs from time to time, but in vain.  It was further stated that for the last few months, the complainant faced problem of power window (motors) of both sides and the same could not be rectified, despite repeated visits and requests. Finally when the defects could not be rectified, OP No.4 replaced the right side window motor of the vehicle on 8.8.2009 whereas, regarding the left side window motor, OP No.4 called the complainant on 17.8.2009. As per appointment and assurance given by OP No.4, the complainant visited and approached the OP to replace the left side window motor but OP No.4 refused to replace it on the pretext that the warranty had expired because the vehicle was earlier sold at Ferozepur, Punjab on 31.1.2008. It was next stated that on 28.8.2009 suddenly the air conditioner of the vehicle also stopped cooling/working. The vehicle was also not giving proper mileage and consuming more engine oil. It was further stated that actually, the said vehicle was a demo car, which was sold to the complainant after constant use and, therefore, the OPs played a fraud upon the complainant and sold a second hand defective car to him and charged the amount of brand new vehicle.  The above said acts of OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs No. 1 & 2 admitting the factum of purchase of the vehicle. It was stated that the said vehicle was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle carried initial warranty of 18 months, subject to availing of service after regular coverage.  It was stated that the extensive usage of the vehicle showed that it was regularly used by the complainant for commercial purpose. The vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.4 on 8.8.2009 after coverage of 22713 Kms. with the complaint of power window and OP No.4 without charging anything, changed one unit of assembly of power window under the warranty terms. OPs No.1 and 2 sold brand new vehicle to OP No.3 for onwards sale to the customer. It was denied that the OP No.4 called upon the complainant on 17.8.2009 to get replaced the window motor.  It was further alleged that if on 31.7.2009, the warranty had expired then there was no necessity for OP No.4 to provide warranty services to the complainant on 8.8.2009. All other allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied.  It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on their part, nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.

4.         Reply was filed by OP No.3 admitting the factual matrix of the case. It was denied that the air conditioner of the above said vehicle stopped cooling and the vehicle was not giving proper mileage. It was denied that OP No.3 ever tampered with the meter reading to cover up it alleged misdeeds. It was denied that the vehicle was used as demo vehicle or it was sold to the complainant after constant use of the same. It was stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to decide the case, as the vehicle was purchased from Ludhiana and delivery was also taken by the complainant from Ludhiana. It was further stated that OP No.3 had no branch at Chandigarh. All other allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part.

5.         Reply was filed by OP No.4 admitting the facts with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. It was denied that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing and mechanical defect.  It was admitted that the vehicle came to the workshop of OP No.4 on 8.8.2009. The job card was opened and the vehicle was attended to for normal running repairs. As per the job card, problem of “power window not working properly”, was mentioned and the vehicle was attended to under the conditions of warranty. All other allegations levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, and unfair trade practice on its part.

6.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.

7.         The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint.  

8.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant/appellant filed the instant appeal. 

9.         We have heard Sh.Arun Dogra, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2 and proxy counsel for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4, Sh.Gurmohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3, and have perused the record, carefully.

10.       The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo Diesel LX car on 7.3.2008 for a sum of Rs.5,43,050/- with warranty of 1 ½ year.  It was further argued that he faced problem of power window (motors) of both sides and OP No.4 replaced the right side window motor of the vehicle on 8.8.2009 and regarding the left side window motor, OP No.4 called him on 17.8.2009 but on that date, OP No.4 refused to replace it on the pretext that the warranty had expired because the above said vehicle was earlier sold at Ferozepur, Punjab on 31.1.2008. It was further stated that the OPs played a fraud upon the complainant and sold a second hand defective car to him and charged the amount of brand new vehicle. 

11.       The learned counsel for respondents/OPs No. 1 & 2 argued that the vehicle was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP No.4 on 8.8.2009 after coverage of 22713 Kms. with the complaint of power window and OP No.4 without charging anything, changed one unit of assembly of power window under the warranty terms. Hence, there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

12.       The learned counsel for OP No.3 argued that the vehicle was not suffering from any defect and was not used as a demo vehicle. It was denied that OP No.3 had sold the second hand vehicle to the complainant.

13.             It is an admitted fact that the appellant/complainant had purchased the above said car from OP-3 (Dada Motors Ltd.) on 07.03.2008, which carried a warranty of 18 months.  The perusal of job cards for the period from 5.9.2008 to 02.06.2009 shows that the complainant took his car thrice to OP No.4 (authorized Service Centre of OP-3) for free service.  From these job cards, it is evident that during this period, no major repair had been done by OP No.4 except the routine service by changing some oil filters, engine oil, wheel balancing etc. Hence, we do not find any force of the complainant that there was manufacturing defect in the above said car particularly when the car had covered mileage of 22713 Kms, that too without giving any trouble. Moreover, the complainant also failed to produce any evidence of the expert that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect. When on 8.8.2009, the complainant took his car for service to OP No.4, it was found that the power window of the right side of the car was not working properly and the OP No.4 replaced the defective motor, free of cost, as on that date, the above said car was under warranty. There is no evidence to prove that thereafter the complainant had ever taken the above said car for repair to OP No.4. Thus, in the absence of any evidence in that regard, the contention of the complainant that OP No.4 called him on 17.08.2009 to replace the defective motor of the window of the left side of the car, and refused to repair it free-of-cost, on the pretext that as the above said car was earlier sold at Ferozepur, Punjab on 31.1.2008 and the warranty period had already expired on 31.07.2009, cannot be believed as correct. Not only this, the allegations levelled by the complainant regarding the selling of demo car, are also baseless because as Annexure R-3 (the original sale invoice) issued by OP No.1 (Tata Motors) the manufacturer to OP No.3 (the dealer) shows that the above-said car had been sold to OP No.3 on 9.1.2008, for further sale to the customer and the same was sold to the complainant on 07.03.2008 vide invoice Annexure C-1/1. Had the car been sold earlier to somebody else at Ferozepur, Punjab on 31.1.2008, as alleged by the complainant, then on 8.8.2009, OP No.4 would not have replaced the defective motor of the window of the right side of the car, free-of-cost, being not under warranty period. Therefore, it has been proved that OP No.3 after getting the above said car, from the manufacturer, on 9.1.2008 straightway sold the same on 7.3.2008 to the complainant only and not to anybody else.

14.             In view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice and the learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the appeal filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

15.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

16.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

7^th April, 2011.