District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 656/2022
Date of Institution:09.12.2022
Date of Order:08.06.2023.
Jai Singh Malik son of Shri Rajbir Singh R/o Near Greenwood Public School, Adarsh Colony, Palwal, Haryana – 121102.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd., 24, SIE Patparganj Industrial Area, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110092 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s. Autovikas Sales and Service Pvt. Ltd. (Authorized Dealer of Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd), Showroom:
Plot NO.2, Sectgor-5, Northern India Compound, 20.3 Milestone, Mathura Road, Faridabad – 121005 through its Director/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. M.S.Bainsla, counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 ex-parte v/o dated 29.03.2023.
Sh. Vishnu Dutt Counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a motor car, the model of vehicle was Harrier XT 2.0L Kryotec BS VI, having chassis No. MAT631122NPA50488, Engine No. 46343885-4153171 on 10.02.2022 from opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. 1AUTAT2122000687 dated 1002.2022 for a sum of Rs.16,48,724/-. Opposite party No.2 also allotted temporary No. T0222HR7276H. Now the permanent registration number of said vehicle was HR-30-Y-5495. The complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle on the assurance given by the opposite parties that the vehicles of opposite party No.1 were World Class vehicles and compete with the renowned companies of the world in technology and material used in their vehicles. Keeping in view the goodwill claimed by opposite parties, the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle from opposite party No.2. This costly vehicle was purchased by the complainant with the financial help of State Bank of India and after purchase of this vehicle, the complainant followed all the formalities of the service and handling of the vehicle, but within a period of six months, this vehicle started rusting on its body parts i.e. all four windows, bonnet, bonnet fender, boot parts, inside boots, three footrests, dicky backside and other parts of the vehicle, In this way, the complete vehicle started rusting and seeing all this, the family of the complainant was very tensed to see this rust of the new vehicle within a period of six month, which was unexpected and shocking for everyone. After facing the aforesaid rusting problem the complainant contacted and emailed the opposite party on 31.08.2022 at 15:55 and attached the photographs of the rusting problem of the vehicle. After receiving the same opposite party No.2 referred the complainant to the personnel who attend the complaint of these types of matters and the opposite party No.2 further sent
another email which mentioned that “The case has been referred to the TATA Motors warranty department and as and when they should be receiving approval for the same should be executed accordingly”. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 sent another email vide which asked the complainant “In the lieu of trailing mail, Sir, we had received the approval and same informed to you. As per warranty policy the effected parts were warranted for, repaint. We will do the needful as per Tata Motors Plant terms and conditions. Please do not have any apprehension in this regard.” This problem of rusting in a newly purchased vehicle had occurred quit early i.e within a period of 06 month which was not expected from such a renowned company and not even in a low end model. The rusting problem was quiet extensive as low end model. The rusting problem was quit extensive as mentioned above and it was therein whole body of the vehicle and repainting of the newly vehicle would diminish the originality, value and life of the vehicle and it could reoccur within short span of time, which could not be acceptable to any person who ha d spent such a huge amount of the purchase of such a costly vehicle. The alleged rusting policy was nothing but a one-sided policy of the opposite party which was completely against the rights of the complainant/consumer and was genuinely misfit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complainant sent legal notice dated 31.10.2022 to the opposite parties through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) replace/change the vehicle with a new same vehicle without any defect alongwith the insurance, registration and other charges incurred by the complainant in the purchase of this vehicle alongwith compensation for
harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant.
b) refund the entire amount paid by the complainant including insurance, registration, interest paid on loan etc. alongwith compensation detailed below to the complainant.
c) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 not received back in any form. Tracking details filed in which it has been mentioned that “Item delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party no.1 was hereby proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2022.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on 4.4.2022 the complainant visited OP Nos.2’s workshop with his vehicle bearing No. HR-30-Y-5495. Model Harrier XT 2.0 L Kryotee BS IV for effecting Schedule service to the said vehicle and the opposite party No.2 provided the complainant scheduled services free of cost under the policy “First Free Service” and the complainant was thoroughly satisfied and happy/delighted with the services provided by opposite party No.2. ON 22.07.2022 the complainant again visited opposite party No.2’s workshop with his vehicle bearing NO. HR-30-Y-5495, Model Harrier XT 2.0 L Kryotec BS IV for accident repairs and the same services were provided to the complainant and the complainant were provided to the complainant and the complainant was thoroughly satisfied and delighted with the services provided by the opposite party No.2. On 22.07.2022 the complainant again visited opposite party No.2’s workshop with his vehicle bearing NO. HR-30-Y-5495, Model Harrier XT 2.0 Kryotec BS IV for Accident repairs
and the said services were provided to the complainant and the complainant was thoroughly satisfied and delighted with the services provided by opposite party No.2. On 31.08.2022 the complainant contacted opposite party No.2 through email and complained about the rusting problem in the abvoesaid vehicle. After receiving the above said email their client replied to the same and informed to the complainant that as per the Rusting policy of Tata Motors Passenger Pvt. Ltd. The above said vehicle of the complainant was warranted for repair/repaint, and opposite party No.2 was ready to provide the services to the complainant. On 27.09.2022 the complainant visited opposite party No.2’s workshop with his vehicle bearing NO. HR-30-Y-4595, Model Harrier XT 2.0 L Kryotec BS IV for Rust Formation/Paint Peel off/paint mismatch/fade and general checks and rectification and opposite party No.2 was ready/desirous to provide the above sand service to the complainant but the complainant was very adamant and refused for the service. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–M/s. Tata Motors & Anr. with the prayer to: a) replace/change the vehicle with a new same vehicle without any defect alongwith the insurance, registration and other charges incurred by the complainant in the purchase of this vehicle alongwith compensation for harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. b)refund the entire amount paid by the complainant including insurance, registration, interest paid on loan etc. alongwith compensation detailed
below to the complainant. c) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 55,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Jai Singh Malik, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 – RC, Ex.C3 (colly) – 30 pages,, Ex.C-4(colly) – email Ex.C-5 – legal notice,, Ex.C-6 & 7 – postal receipts, Ex.C-8 – reply to legal notice,, Ex.C-9 - adhaar card. Ex.C-10 – Survey & Opinion report.
On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party No.2 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.2 Ex.RW1/A –affidavit of Shri Dharamvir Singh, Authorized Representative of M/s. Autovikas Sales and Service Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 57, Rama Road, New Delhi, Ex.R-2 – Service history.
7. In this case, manufacturer i.e M/s. Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd - opposite party No.1 has already proceeded against ex-parte. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party No.1 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted.
8. During the course of arguments, Ms. Poonam, counsel for opposite party No.2 has made a statement that “we can only re-paint the vehicle in question. We cannot exchange the vehicle No. HR-30Y-5495. We are only the dealers not the manufacturer of Auto Vikas Sales & Service Pvt. Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.1.”
9. As per Expert report vide C-10 issued by Shri Chand Kumar Bhatia, Surveyor & Loss Assessors alongwith the photographs in which it has
been written in observation & opinion column “ Ideally, A Consumer deserves full satisfaction to his price paid. With above observations and technical analysis, it is obvious that vehicle should be withdrawn for comprehensive replacement first of well painted body shell and then a perfectly matching components mounted on it, particularly which change their shape after fixing first time. But as an Engineer, I would not recommend so much of work on the vehicle, which will still leave uncertainties that machine will work satisfactorily. I foresee further that even after so much of reworking on vehicle, the value of the vehicle will substantially fall. One thing is sure that if the painting is properly done now, the rusting can be prevented to reasonable extent. The manufacturer may be demanded for extended warrantee and suitable compensation for reduction in value of the vehicle may be made. However, this aspect not being technical and purely commercial, I restrain to comment further in this regard, which was between the two parties or within the powers of the Court. From technical point of view the vehicle needs to be withdrawn by the company and work comprehensively on it.”
10. After going through the expert report as well as the evidence led by the complainant, the Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is intentionally avoiding the services. Hence opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2023. It is principal to principal. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.2. As per the expert report vide Ex. C-10 that vehicle needs to be withdrawn by the company and work comprehensively on it. Keeping in view of the above, the complaint is allowed.
11. Opposite parties Nos. 1 & 2 jointly & severally, are directed to replace the vehicle in question with a new one of the same model to the complainant, subject to return the old one. Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 are also
directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. The complainant will bear the taxes and GST amount i.e not refundable. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs.
Announced on: 08.06.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
