Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/592/2020

Girish Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Chaudhary

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/592/2020
Date of Institution	:	16/12/2020
Date of Decision	:	10/11/2023

 

Girish Pal Singh, S/o Shri Sarab Pal Singh, R/o Flat No.A-43, Uppals Marble Arch, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh-160101.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Tata Motors Ltd., Registered Office: Bombay House 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.
2. Managing Director, M/s CMPL Motors (P) Ltd., Plot No.23, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Sahil Chowdhary, Advocate proxy for Sh.Shivam Grover, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Kant Goel, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.     Averments are that the complainant had purchased Tata XENON Crew, on 24.10.2015 from the OP No.2. The complainant was made to deposit a total amount of Rs.1,87,000/- and as the remaining amount of Rs.6,19,891/- was financed from HDFC bank (Annexure C-1). This amount to total of Rs.8,06,891.95. The invoice value of the vehicle was shown at Rs.7,32,212/- and the complainant was cheated by OPs charging over price of the vehicle to the extent of Rs.74,679.95. The vehicle in question broken down on different dates and the photographs, showing towing and the defect parts are annexed as Annexure C-2 colly. In various complaints, sent through email, the manufacturing defect was admitted by the OPs (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the complaint obtained the services of one Mr.Narinder Singh Virdi, who charged a total amount of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant dated 4.8.2020 and upon request of the complainant, has also sworn in an affidavit dated 4.11.2020 to the effect that the vehicle in question is having inherent manufacturing defect and the OPs was not able to remove the same as the unusual knocking loud noise from the engine is still persisting (Annexure C-5). The complainant has incurred a total expenses of Rs.2.50 lacs, however, due to the inherent manufacturing defect, the repeated repairs through the dealer/OP No.2 and even from various mechanics, the problem is persisting. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure C-6). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the vehicle in question was purchased on 9.11.2015. The said vehicle carries manufacturer’s warranty which shall be valid for 36 months from the date of sale of vehicle or 3,00,000 kms., as stipulated in clause 1 of the warranty terms and conditions (Annexure 1). It is also stated that the vehicle in question as on 11.07.2020 had covered 52,383 kms. From the date of purchase which ipso facto make it clear that the vehicle does not suffer with any defect much as manufacturing defect. It is further stated that the first free service was got done on 13.08.2016. But thereafter, the complainant did not bring the vehicle for second and third mandatory free service which was supposed to be done at 30,000 kms or two years and 45,000 kms or 3 years. Therefore, the warranty of the vehicle ceases to exist. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the warranty as provided by the manufacturer alongwith the new vehicle of 36 months from the date of sale of vehicle or 3 lacs Kms., already stand expired. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 9.11.2015. The vehicle is having irregular service record. The breakdown of the vehicle was caused inter alia due to its H.P. Pump failure after a span of almost five years, more particularly when the vehicle had covered a distance of 52,383 kms from the date of purchase, which clearly shows that there has been no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the cause of breakdown was irregular maintenance of the vehicle in question by the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant has failed to implead HDFC Bank as party to the present complaint and has been leveling false allegation not only against the bank but so also against the answering OP without any basis and on the basis of wrong and distorted facts. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.  
4.     No rejoinder filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant & learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have overcharged the amount towards the purchase of vehicle and vehicle is having inherent manufacturing defect.
8.     With regard to first grievance, it is observed that though the complainant has alleged the OPs having overcharged the purchase price of vehicle, but he has not adduced any documentary evidence to that effect. Regarding the second grievance with regard to the vehicle having manufacturing defect, the complainant has annexed only one annexure C-3, which is with regard to maintenance of vehicle beyond the warranty period. The complainant himself alleged in para 15 of the complaint that cause of action firstly accrued on 28.05.2020 i.e., after four and half years of its purchase as the vehicle in question was purchased on 9.11.2015 and had warranty of three years w.e.f. the date of purchase.
9. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Hashmukh Laxmi Chand (2009) 3 CPJ 229  it was held that manufacturing defect is more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defects, is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing machine. To prove such defects opinion of an expert is a necessary which was not forthcoming in this case.
10.     The National Commission in R. Bhaskar vs. D.N. Udani IV (2006) CPJ 257 held that where vehicle has been in use for one year and five months and had run over 9808 k.m., it is difficult to believe that the same suffered from manufacturing defect.
11.     In Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile I(2013) CPJ 47 NC held that to prove manufacturing defect, report of  expert is necessary. Burden of proof is on complainant. Similar view was taken by Union Territory Commission, Chandigarh in Kawaljit Singh vs. Broadway Auto Engg. III(2014) CPJ 212.
12.     In Ajita Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. vs. Teleco I (2007) CPJ 204 and Swaraj Mazade vs.P.K. ChaK Kapoor II (2005) CPJ 72, NC held that expert opinion is must for proving manufacturing defect.
13.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
14.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
10/11/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member