BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.366 of 2021

Date of Instt. 25.10.2021

Date of Decision:24.06.2022

Raj Kumar Bhalla, Advocate aged about 56 years son of Sh. Rajinder Nath Bhalla, resident of WP-89, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s TATA Motors Limited, Registered Office at Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001, Through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2.       AAKRITI WORLD, Opp. President Hotel, Jalandhar, Through its Prop./Partner.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. V. K. Attri, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is the manufacture of Tata Vehicles and the OP No.2 is the authorized dealer for sale of all types of non-commercial vehicle at Jalandhar. The OP No.1 introduced a Tata Harrier vehicle and there is a big publicity in the media about the said vehicle claiming the good quality as well as full of features in the same. The OP No.2 also contacted the complainant and assured the complainant that the Tata Harrier Vehicle is the best vehicle among its segment and is full of all the features which are generally given in the luxury cars. As per assurance, the complainant purchased a Tata Harrier XZA on 28.08.2020 having engine no.46343841-4063179, chassis no.MAT631512LPC52373 which was later on registered with the registration no.PB08-EH-0404 on 18.09.2020 with RTA Jalandhar. Immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant found that when the vehicle remained on slow speed of 5 to 10 KM per hour and at that time, when the complainant applied the brake, there is a noise of sound and which even attract the attention of passerby. The noise becomes a source of nuisance for the complainant and it creates pressure on the mind of the driver always. Thereafter, the complainant immediately approached the OP No.2 and brought into notice the said defect, the concerned mechanic/incharge told the complainant that with the passage of time, it will automatically corrected. But even with the passage of time, there was not any improvement in the said defect and rather the noise started coming in a louder voice. Thereafter, at number of times, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for the said defect, but inspite of efforts of OP No.2, the same could not be repaired/corrected. The OP No.2 is having complete record of all the job cards of the vehicle which clearly proves that how many times, the complainant approached it for the repair of the vehicle. When all the efforts of the complainant as well as OP No.2 did not bring any result, the complainant puta complaint to the customer care of the OP No.1 and also brought the said defect into the notice of complaint centre. The first complaint was made on 13.05.2021 which was properly replied on 14.05.2021 by the customer care and the said complaint was referred to OP No.2. On 16.05.2021, the complainant received a message on whatsapp which stated that the noise is not such serious and it is also claimed that such noise is found in every vehicle. The complainant stunned to see the reply of the said official and then on 19.05.2021 the complainant again made a complaint to the customer care. The said mail was replied on 20.05.2021 by the customer care and then on 08.06.2021 the complainant received a mail from customer care by which it was informed to the complainant that the Chandigarh Regional Office has been intimated about the problem which will provide the necessary things for correcting the said vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant again sent the vehicle to the OP NO.2 for removing/repairing the defect but no fruitful result came, then on 27.06.2021, the complainant again informed the OP No.1 and also requested to engage some senior engineer to sort out the problem which was replied on 28.06.2021 with the assurance that concerned team will get in touch with the complainant shortly. Thereafter, the complainant again sent the vehicle to the OP No.2 and which replaced some parts of the vehicle but in spite of that, the said defect was not repaired and the complainant again informed to the OP No.1 on 08.07.2021 regarding the latest status of the vehicle. On 13.07.2021, one email was received from the OP No.1 by which claimed that the said sound is also in demo vehicle and it is normal phenomenon and is not a manufacturing defect. The complainant was again stunned to see this reply by which the OP No.1 claimed that it is natural phenomenon and then the complainant again sent an email on 17.07.2021 by which OPs were informed that if it is a natural phenomenon then why the company does not mention it in the brochure of the vehicle.

2.                Due to the said noise problem there always remains stress on the complainant as well as other drives because at the time of applying the brake at slow speed, such noise attract the attention of the drives and the passerby and it can be heard from a distance even. At the time of selling the vehicle the OPs assured that the vehicle is a perfect in respect of all things but the said noise problem is a manufacturing defect which could not be repaired in spite of the efforts by the OP No.2. In this way, the OPs have supplied a defective vehicle to the complainant and have engaged an unfair trade practice and moreover, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, for which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 11.09.2021 to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to immediately repair the said defect in the above said vehicle or to replace the said vehicle with new one and OPs be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is without any action in as much as, as discernable from the complaint, the only grouse of the complainant is that the vehicle is creating squeaking sound while applying brakes on low speed. The service engineers of the OP No.2 who are qualified in automobile sector, inspected the vehicle and observed that the sound generated is not due to any mechanical defect or due to any operational issue but being a characteristic of Harrier vehicle which has been manufactured by answering OP. Since, the complainant was not ready to accept the opinion given by service engineer of OP No.2, the complainant was being informed that the same sound persists in another Tata Harrier vehicle and that too also creating same sound. The said view was also seconded by engineers of answering OP No.1 also. Thus, it is made clear that there is no defect/shortcoming as alleged by the complainant. It is further averred that the OP No.1 is carrying out its obligation as envisaged in warranty terms and conditions of the vehicle as clearly set out under Clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the warranty states which says that our obligation under this warranty shall be limited to repairing or replacing, free of charge, such parts of the car which, in our opinion, are defective, on the car being brought to us or to our dealers within the period. The parts so repaired or replaced shall also be warranted for quality and workmanship but such warranty shall be co-terminus with this original warranty. It is further averred that the complainant has not filed any documentary proof in support of her contention to show that the vehicle really had any manufacturing defect. No expert evidence has been adduced by the complainant to establish any defect in the vehicle in question. Hence the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the said vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. This Commission is having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. There is no cause of action against the answering OP. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the vehicle is in perfect condition. The complainant is using the vehicle as per his own wish and there is no defect whatsoever in the vehicle. The present complaint is filed on false grounds. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. On merits the factum with regard to purchasing of the vehicle by the complainant as well as issuing of the RC to the complainant was admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

6.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence.

7.                We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the OP No.1 and OP No.2 very minutely.

8.                It is admitted and proved that the complainant purchased a Tata Harrier XZA from the OP No.2 on 28.08.2020. The RC has been proved as Ex.C-1. It has been alleged by the complainant that immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, he found that the vehicle remained on slow speed of 5 to 10 KM per hour and at that time, when the brake was applied, there was a noise of sound and it has become source of nuisance for the complainant and it caused pressure on the driver. The complainant has proved on record the job cards Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6. The OPs have also proved on record the job cards, which are Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-8 and Ex.O-11 and Ex.O-12. Perusal of these job cards shows that in all the job sheets, there is a complaint of ‘brake applied noise’. As per the contention of the OPs, there was no such noise and the vehicle was in perfect condition. Whenever the vehicle was sent to the service centre, every time the complainant was satisfied with the services of the OPs and there was no deficiency and defect in the vehicle when the same was checked, but this contention is not tenable as the complainant has alleged that he got checked the vehicle from Expert and the report of the Expert has been proved as Ex.C-18. Perusal of the Ex.C-18 shows that it is consisting with the Appendix A and B and two vehicles were compared with each other and this report has been given by the Expert of Dr. B. R. Amdedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar. It has been observed by the Expert that the intensity of Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) lever were measured for Two vehicles (Reference vehicle and PB-08-EH-0404) as shown in Appendix-A and Appendix-B. Unusual, strange, unpleasant noise appeared/heard at slow speed (5-10 KM per hour) as per Fig 3 and Fig 5 of TATA Harrier PB-08-EH-0404. Over a time period, this may cause wear and tear and may reduce performance with an increase in NVH level. The complainant has also proved on record Ex.C-19 and Ex.C-20. Ex.C-21 showing that for getting the vehicle checked from Expert, he has paid Rs.35,040/-. No Expert has been examined by the OPs to rebut the opinion of the Expert proved by the complainant.

9.                The contention of the OPs that the OP No.1 has been performing its part of contractual obligations by carrying out the necessary repairs/replacement of parts, therefore no cause of action arose against the OP No.1, but this contention is not tenable as the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 28.08.2020 and since then the vehicle was sent to the service centre number of times for the same problem. This shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The problem and grievance of the complainant regarding the brake applied was never redressed. The complainant has sent emails also, which have been proved as Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-14. In all the emails sent by the complainant, the complainant has been asking to do the needful as the defect in the vehicle was a manufacturing defect and it seems that it was not repairable. In reply to all the emails by the OPs, it has been mentioned by the OPs that the Chandigarh Regional Office have been intimated to provide all the necessary support regarding the issue on priority basis, but the complaint of the complainant was never redressed. The legal notice was also sent by the complainant, which has been proved as Ex.C-15.

10.              From the above discussion and the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties, it has been proved that the complainant purchased a Tata Harrier XZA from the OPs and immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, there was brake applied noise and despite number of emails and sending the vehicle number of times to the service station within a span of one year of its purchase, the defect was not removed. Even the report of expert shows that there was a manufacturing defect, which may effect the performance of the vehicle in the coming time. Thus, there is a deficiency in service and the complainant has proved his case and as such, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

11.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for Rs.18,43,726/- as per the invoice, placed on record. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.18,43,726/- alongwith the charges spent for the RC. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, litigation expenses and the cost/charges of engaging the Expert of Dr. B. R. Amdedkar National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar. The complainant is directed to return the RC and the vehicle to the OP. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.       

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

24.06.2022         Member                          Member      President