Delhi

New Delhi

CC/535/2008

Reena Manchanda & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Mirkana Engineering Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                      (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                                      ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                                          NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./535/2008                                                          Dated:

In the matter of:

MRS. Reena Manchanda

w/o Mr. Jitender Manchanda

R/o BB-10/F, DDA Flats Munirka,

New Delhi-110067

                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant

                                               

                                                            Versus

 

1. M/s Mirkana Engineering Pvt. Limited

A-One Motors

Kanchenjunga Building

Barakhamba Road

New Delhi-110001

 

2. M/s TATA Motors Limited

Bombay House

24, Homi Mody Street

Mumbai 400001

                                                                                     …..Respondents

      H.M. VYAS - MEMBER

 

                                                            ORDER

 

                                    The Complaint was initially filed before the Hon'ble State Commission and the Hon'ble State Commission vide orders dated 09-04-2008 transferred the complaint to this District Forum for disposal. The prayer made in the complaint is as below.

a) To pay to the complainant a sum of RS. 8,27,946 in the manner

1) Rs. 7,14,711/- being price of the vehicle.

2) Rs 34,350/- as the cost of accessories.

3) Rs. 78,885, being the interest payable by the complainant to the bank from where it has been taken on installments.

b) Refund the entire amount of Rs.14,500 as set out in Para 17 of the complainant to the complainant.

c) To pay to the complainant Rs. 1,270/- as set out in Para 21 of the complaint.

d) To pay to the complainant Rs/ 29,200/- as set out in Para 28 of the complaint.

e) To pay the complaint a sum of Rs 6,00,000/- as compensation for loss of work suffered by her during this period of Two and half years.

f) Pay complainant damages for mental anguish, stress which the complainant put at a minimum of Rs. 20 lacs. The petitioner submits that the inconvenience, mental anguish and harassment were to that extent that no monetary compensation can be just.

g) Cost of Rs. 50,000/- may also be awarded to the Complainant.

h) Any other relief this Hon'ble Forum deems fit, be granted to the complainant.

 It is stated in the complaint the complainant is the proprietor of the Business firm M/s Aalok Printers purchased a Tata Safari in 2004 manufactured for Rs.7,14,711/- by OP-2 having two years warranty for all manufacturing defects. Extended warranty was also opted by Complainant. The vehicles was purchased from OP-1. The complainant and her family are frequent out-station travelers and purchased the vehicle believing the product and services to be of good quality.

The complainant alleged that the said vehicle had serious manufacturing defect of overheating. In October,2006, while the complainant was travelling and passing through a desert, the defect of overheating surfaced. With great difficulty the Complainant could hire a bus to bring the Safari to a transportation place from where it was loaded in truck and brought  to Delhi and incurred expenses of Rs.12000/- on transportation of vehicle from that place and also paid Rs2,500/- in cash for the bus services. The vehicle was given to respondent no.1 on 04-10-2006 for repair and OP-1 returned on 31-10-2006. A Bill of Rs.87,856 was raised which was unwarranted and uncalled for as the vehicle was within warranty period. It was the responsibility of the OP to set right the defects in the vehicle and ultimately the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs. 33,000/- after negotiate. The same problem again surfaced in December,2006 and this time the coolant from the vehicle back fired. The OP-1 was, informed of the defect/problem complaint and on their advice the vehicle was sent to service station on 12-12-2006. The OP-1 claimed to have repaired it and then delivered back to the complainant on09-01-20007.

The same problem of overheating again surfaced in January, 2007 when the complainant was travelling from Delhi to Gwalior and so the journey was to be suspended in Mathura. With great difficulty the vehicle was brought to Delhi. The vehicle was given for repairs to A-one Motor on 27-01-2006. The respondents informed the complainant that ASSY Cylinder Crank was defected and engine was over heated primarily due to said defect and the same part has been replaced. The complainant was assured that there would be no problem in the vehicle.

It is alleged that it was a manufacturing defect which serious engine defects which caused mental stress to the complainant . The inherent defect in the engine which was not corrected and surfaced in the month of April,2007, when the complainant with family members were back to Delhi from Anandapur Trust at M.P. On complaining to OP-2 on return, the problem was declined with no remedy. On 02-05-2007, the complainant lodged complaint with the Customer Support Manager of Tata Motors limited (OP-2) in Gurgaon and informed both the OPs to sort out the defect. The efforts of the complainant proved futile. The OP-1 informed vide letter dated 12-05-2007 that it has been repaired and the complaint should take the delivery of the vehicle. In such circumstances, the Complainant was no longer interested to take back the defective vehicle and conveyed such sentiments to the OP-1 and OP-2 on 12-05-2007 while the vehicle was under repair with the first OP. Legal notice was sent on 21-01-2008.

            The OP-1 filed its written statement/version stating that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The OP-1 had rectified the defects. It is alleged that the Complainant is aware that the engine of the vehicle in question was opened/ repaired through same one other than an authorized dealers in Gwalior(MP) and therefore, the said warranty was terminated due to violation of the terms and conditions of policy. The Complainant has already settled the matter with the OP1 on 20-11-2007 (copy of settlement agreement has been supposed on record). All the allegations made by the Complainant have been categorically denied.

The OP-2 also filed written statement/version denying all the allegations as leveled in the complaint. It is stated that the defect lodged cannot be determined without proper analysis by this court and the complainant has not placed any expert opinion in this regard. The vehicle was perfect and not suffering from any manufacturing defects.  In Para 15 of the written statement, it is stated that due to continuous running of the vehicle, the engine gets overheated however , the recurrence of the said problem has been denied. It is also stated that the warranty of the vehicle was terminated as the engine was dismantled and opened in Gwalior (MP), therefore, the Complainant is not entitle for any relief also on this account. It is, however, not denied that vehicle was delivered back to the complainant after repairs. The receipt of the complaint dated 02-05-2007 is admitted but the defects complained have been stated to be false, frivolous and denied. It is stated further that as per the information received by the OP-2, the defect complained by Complainant to OP-1 was duly rectified and vehicle delivered to Complainant. The Complainant and OPs filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. All the parties addressed Oral arguments.

During the course of argument the learned Counsel for OP’s have stressed upon the issue that the vehicle has been transferred during the pendency of this case and is not with the Complainant and as such the Complainant ceases- to be a consumer under the scope of Consumer Protection Act. The Complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Whereas on the other hand the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant states that the vehicle is still under the ownership of the Complainant.

We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of parties along with relevant provision of law. The purchase of TATA manufactured vehicle and the series of complaints made to the OP-1 for defect of overheating are undisputed. It is not in dispute that the complaint opted for an extended warranty. The main arguments of the OP are that the defect of overheating reported by complainant was remedied; the warranty of the vehicle was terminated as the engine was opened dismantled in MP which violated the terms and conditions; and that the vehicle has been transferred by the complainant. In our considered opinion, no prudent person would make repeated complaints for no defect in the vehicle nor would like

 

the vehicles engine opened/repair during the outstation visit unless there is serious problem faced. If such a problem/defect in vehicle surfaces during outstation visit then the only option left is to arrange for services from the nearest possible workshop to make the vehicle run and the complainant had so done. Thus the argument of the OP regarding termination of warranty in such circumstances is unjust without realising the repeated complaint for the same defect of overheating. The argument is, therefore, rejected. The other argument of OP is without merit and bald since no document showing the transfer of the vehicle transfer by the complainant has been filed.

            In these facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the defect complaint repeatedly by the complained was not ultimately remedied by the OP’s.  Both the OP’s have attempted to shirk their responsibilities on one another on one pretext or the other. A vehicle of a reputed company like TATA is not expected to malfunction just within two three years of purchase as has emerged in the present case. The OP’s failed to repudiate that complainant did not spend money while bringing the vehicle back from different places when it stopped plying due to overheating. This amount comes to Rs.50,000 (approx.) which was spent by complainant. the vehicle is in use with the complainant and therefore, the prayer for the refund of the cost of vehicle is rejected. On two occasion notably, on one occasion the vehicle got overheated and  was stuck in Mathura, it was to be taken back to Delhi. On another occasion the vehicle was again overheated in a desert and it was taken back to Delhi in a truck. It is really traumatic for a family who is going in a vehicle which gets stopped due to some mechanical defect. Then it simply waste their time for them, the family has to incur expenses in coming back to Delhi and sometimes they have to stay in hotels which also involves expenditure.

We, therefore, hold both the OPs jointly and severely to be guilty of deficiency in services as mechanical defect of the vehicle could not be repaired satisfactorily on different occasions. A compensation of Rs. 1.80 Lacs in lump sum is awarded for harassment and mental agony caused to complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest at the rate of 9% shall be payable from the date of this order till the date of realization.

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum  16/01/2019.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

             (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                            PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                                                     (H M VYAS)

                   MEMBER                                                                                                   MEMBER