SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing opposite parties to replace the defective motor car with new one or return the amount of Rs.9,55,637/- which was paid for the motor car and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as the cost of proceedings to the complainant.
Briefly stated the facts are that OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the Tata motors car and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer and service centre of the OP No.1. Complainant had purchased Tata motors Ltd. motor car from OP No.2 on 05/01/2021, via, model name Tata Altroz XT 1.5 RTQ BS6 by paying an amount of Rs.9,55,637/- manufactured by OP No.1. The registration number is KL 13 AS 5978. The complainant submit that while purchasing the said car OP No.2 made believe him that the car is of high quality and proper attention and care will be provided by them in any exigency arises. The complainant submits that 1st free service of the said vehicle was on 20/01/2021. Soon after the 1st free service, when the complainant was using the said car, he could notice engine break down symbol was lighting on dashboard. So, on the next day itself he brought the car to OP No.2, then he kept the vehicle for an hour and the staff of OP No.2 made believe the complainant that it was only a mere software issue and the same was rectified by them and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant. At the time of delivery of vehicle after repair work the OP No.2 made believe the complainant that it was only a software issue, a mere technical problem and they cured it and made believe the complainant that the vehicle was in good condition and they had not issued any job card for the service. The complainant submits that 2nd free service of the said vehicle laws on 05/03/2021. Soon after the 2nd free service, when the complainant using the vehicle he could notice the same complaint of lighting of engine break down symbol on dashboard and the same complaint is frequently happening on 15/03/2021 he brought the car to OP No.2 for repair work kept the vehicle for 9 days for repair work. At the time of redelivery of vehicle on 23/03/2021 the OP No.2 made believe the complainant that the engine oil, injector etc.are replaced and assured the complainant that the engine breakdown would not be happened again and made believe the complainant that the vehicle is in good condition. But thereafter, the mileage and pulling power of the vehicle also decreased. The complainant submits that 3rd free service of the said vehicle was on 12/07/2021. Thereafter, the same breakdown complaint was noticed by the complainant on 16/07/2021 and soon after he brought he car to OP No.2. Immediately after purchase of the vehicle there were complaints on the vehicle and the vehicle has no mileage as promised by the OP No.2. Even though complainant contacted service center and manage many times and the OPs registered a complaint thereon, the OPs could not solve the issues. The complainant submits that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects which cannot be rectified. The brand new car has no mileage and pulling power as promised by the OPs. All the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite party No.1 is liable to replace the defective car with new one or else return the amount of Rs.9,55,637/- which was paid for the car with compensation. Hence this complaint.
OPs entered appearance and filed their version in writing OP No.1, contending that it is submitted that the warranty offered on every car/vehicle, manufactured by this OP, is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as contained in the operator’s service book. It is submitted that the car, purchased by the complainant, is of the highest quality and the complainant had taken delivery of the car, after being satisfied with its condition and its performance. It is submitted that the said car was delivered after carrying out the pre-delivery inspection (in short, PDI) by the dealer. The vehicle as attended by the OP’s dealers/service points fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the vehicle. Hence, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency of service against this OP by the complainant and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. There has been no manufacturing defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and /or deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP No.2 stated that the complainant has purchased a Tata Altroz XT 1.5 R TQ BS6 from OP No.2 on 05/01/2021 with registration No. KL 13AS5978 and OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the car. On 20/01/2021 the complainant had brought the vehicle before the OP No.2 for the 1st free service by that time the vehicle has covered distance of 1938 Kms. The 1st free service and it was done t the satisfaction of the complainant and there was no mechanical complaint raised or alleged by the complainant at that time. There after the complainant brought the vehicle on 05/03/2021 for the 2nd free service by that time the vehicle has covered a distance of 7303 Kms. And it has also done by the OP No.2 with the complete satisfaction of the complainant. On 15/03/2021 the complainant had brought the vehicle before the OP No.2 for some E-breaksown repair and by that time the vehicle has covered 8467 Kms., and OP No.2 done those repairs and replaced certain parts also. The allegation of the complainant that the complainant noticed engine breakdown symbol and dashboard and the same was rectified by this OP and this OP made the complainant to believe that it was only software issue and the vehicle is in good condition are not true hence those are denied by this OP. All other allegations are also denied by OP No.2. It is absolutely incorrect to allege that the complainant has sustained losses due to the warning sign it is also absolutely incorrect to allege that this OP took 9 days for repair and replacement unnecessarily hence those are denied by this OP. None of this OP are not liable to replace the car which is not having any manufacturing defect. On 12/07/2021 the complainant has brought the vehicle for 3rd free service which has covered 15135 Kms. And it has done by OP 2 with complete satisfaction of the complainant. On 16/07/2021 the complainant has brought the vehicle to OP 2 for some running repairs and at that time the vehicle has covered 15,444 Kms. And OP2 has done these repairs and repairs certain parts also. All these works were done under warranty and it has also done and it has satisfied by the complainant. It is absolutely false and to allege that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. This OP also submits that after filing the above complaint before this Hon’ble commission the complainant brought the vehicle before this OP for periodical service and for some running repairs and it was done by this OP perfectly to the satisfaction of the complainant. This OP also submits that the complainant did not raise any complaint with respect to the allegations in the complaint and this OPs service persons could not find out any defects or warning signals in the dash board of the vehicle. If the allegations in the complaint still exist these OPs are ready to rectify the same to the satisfaction of the complainant. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint with a direction to the complainant to bring the vehicle to the service station of this OP for a detailed check up and inspection of the vehicle.
Along with the complaint, an expert application was filed, and the expert appointed by this commission has filed report (Ext.C1). OP2 filed objection to Ext.C1 after his appearance.
After that while pendency of this complaint, OPNo.2 filed an application to appoint an Expert Commissioner. As per the said petition Mr. Sooraj Murut, AMVI, RTO, Kannur was appointed, and after giving due notices to all parties, he had inspected the vehicle in dispute in the presence of parties and filed a report. (Ext.C2).
At the evidence stage, both contesting parties complainant and OP No.2 filed their proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A17. Ext.C1 and C2 were also marked. Ext.C1 was marked subject to proof. On the side of OPs, OP2 submitted documents, which were marked as Ext.B1 and B2. After that the learned counsels of both parties filed their argument notes.
The undisputed facts in this case is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from OPNo.2 on 05/01/2021 manufactured by OP No.1.
Complainant’s allegation is that, while purchasing the said vehicle, OP No.2 made believe him that the car is of having high quality and proper attention. Further, alleged that within two months of the purchase of the same, the vehicle started showing defects which gave a great mental shock and agony to the complainant. The 1st free service of the said car was on 20/01/2021. Soon after it, when the complainant was using the car he could notice engine break symbol lighting on the dashboard. So, on the next day itself he brought the car to OP No.2, then the staff of OP No.2 kept the car for an hour and made believe the complainant believe that it was only a mere software issue and the same was rectified by them and the car was delivered to the complainant and the OP had not issued any job card for the same.
Ext.A2 to A17 shows that complainant had approached OP No.2 for the repair work of the car. It is seen that in each time OP No.2 had done the repair work by replacing the defective parts free of cost, as the vehicle was under warranty period.
Under the consumer Protection Act, compensation or damages can be awarded, only if complainant has suffered loss or damages due to negligence of the manufacturer or service provider. Here there is no finding from the side of Expert Commissioners (2 in Nos.) that the defect or break down of the car was on account of manufacture in defect. Onus to prove that there was any manufacturing defect was on the complainant, which he failed to discharge by submitting expert opinion. In Ext.C1, the expert commissioner noted several defects in the vehicle and opined that “if the mentioned issues are not rectified or repaired it may affect the mileage of the vehicle, engine failure of the vehicle, the density of the pollutants produced by the vehicle will rapidly increase. It can also lead to the breakdown of the vehicle while travelling”. In Ext.C2 expert report, the Expert observed that the present odometer reading78221KM. The defect noted is repairable and can be repaired by correcting fuel intake system, air intake system and control unit like Engine control module and wiring system, but for a new vehicle it is not advisable because it will not get a new vehicle performance no more, it will be a major repaired vehicle.
It is seen that the odometer reading of the vehicle at the inspection time was 78221KM ie. within 2 ½ years of its delivery and opined that the defect is repairable and also opined that for a new vehicle it is not advisable because it will not get a new vehicle performance no more it will be a major repaired vehicle. Here it is a fact that inspection was done after 2 years and 4 months from this purchase and also vehicle run 78221KM before the inspection. So we cannot say that it is a new vehicle. Further on analyzing the deposition of complainant. C2 പ്രകാരം വാഹനം പരിശോധിക്കുന്ന സമയത്ത് വാഹനത്തിെൻറ MIL കത്തിയിരുന്നില്ല. എെൻറ സാനിധ്യത്തിലാണ് പരിശോധന നടന്നത്. C2 വിൽ വാഹനത്തിന് നിർമ്മാണ തരകരാറ് ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല. 28/10/2022 തീയ്യതിക്ക് ശേഷമുള്ള ഏത് രേഖ നോക്കിയാലും MIL തെളിയുന്ന തകരാറ് ഉള്ളതായി കാണില്ല. 16/10/2023 നാണ് നിങ്ങൾ അവസാനമായി OPയുടെ അടുത്ത് സർവ്വീസിന് പോകുന്നത്? ശരിയാണ് . വാഹനത്തിെൻറ coolant level ക്രമാതീതമായി കാണാത്തതിനാലാണ് എഞ്ചിന് ഓവർ ഹീറ്റ് ആകാൻ കാരണം എന്നു പറഞ്ഞത്. കേസിലുൾ പ്പെട്ടവാഹനം ഉപയോഗിക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങിയിട്ട് 3 വർഷമായി. ഏകദേശം 89000 കി.മി. വാഹനം ഓടയിട്ടുണ്ട്. വാഹനം ബിസിനസിെൻറ ആവശ്യത്തിന് പോകുമ്പോൾ വാഹനം ഓണാക്കി നിർത്തിയിട്ട് ലാപ്ടോപ്പ് വഴി ബിസിനസ് ചെയ്യാറുണ്ട്. അപ്രകാരം വാഹനം ഓഫാക്കാതെ നിർത്തിയിടുന്നത് വാഹനത്തിെൻറ പെർഫോർമൻസിന് ബാധിക്കും എന്ന OP പറഞ്ഞ് തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്. B1 ലെ 71-ാം പേജിൽ വാഹനത്തിെൻറ ഡാഷ്ബോർഡിൽ warning ലൈറ്റ് വന്നാൽ എന്ത് ചെയ്യണം എന്ന് കൃത്യമായി പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. ആദ്യം DPF light വന്നപ്പോൾ എന്താണെന്ന് അറിയില്ലായിരുന്നു. 2 സർവ്വീസ് കഴിഞ്ഞപ്പോൾ DPF light വന്നാൽ എന്തുചെയ്യണമെന്ന് ഒപി പറഞ്ഞുതന്നിരുന്ന് DPF light ഉണ്ടാവാനുള്ള കാരണം ഇപ്പോൾ മനസ്സിലാക്കി. ഞാൻ വാഹനത്തിന് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ഇന്ധനം മോശമാണെങ്കിൽ DPF light ഉണ്ടാവാം. Under the warranty the OP was liable to replace the defective parts, if any, and not for payment of any other loss, which may have occurred to the complainant. Ext.B2 submitted by OP1 customer satisfaction note dated 19/02/2024, after replacement of Engine head and ECU under extended warranty, the complainant had signed satisfaction note. Since complainant signed satisfaction note, even after filing of this complaint, not entitled to claim compensation.
Under the warranty, OP is liable to replace the defective parts of the vehicle free of cost. OP2 also ready to a detailed check up and inspection of the vehicle. So complainant is at liberty to bring the vehicle to the service station of OP No.2 for a detailed check up and inspection of the vehicle and if there is any defect find, OP No.2 will have to repair the vehicle by replacing the defective parts free of cost.
In the instant case, it is fact that complainant had to take the vehicle more than 15 time for getting repaired. It is not due to the fault of complainant alone. So we are inclined to allow compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Since there is no manufacturing defect OP1 is the exonerated. OP2 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceeding of this case within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which Rs.25,000/-carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019. If complainant take the vehicle to OP No.2, OP2 shall also make full inspection of the vehicle and rectify the defects of the vehicle if any, with free of cost.
Exts.
A1-Tax invoice issued by OP No.2 dated 31/12/2020
A2-Job card dated 15/03/2021
A3-Job card dated 16/07/2021
A4-Job card dated 28/10/2022
A5-Tax invoice dated 17/05/2022
A6-Tax invoice dated 24/06/2022
A7-Tax invoice dated 21/02/2023
A8-Tax invoice dated 17/11/2022
A9-Tax invoice dated 11/07/2023
A10-Tax invoice dated 15/06/2023
A11-Tax invoice dated 25/01/2022
A12-Tax invoice dated 14/06/2023
A13-Tax invoice dated 03/08/2023
A14-Tax invoice dated 26/09/2023
C1 & C2- Expert commission reports
B1-Owner’s manual of vehicle
B2-Delivery not dated 19/02/2024
Pw1-Complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
