Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/304/2014

M.B.Anand Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.T.Surendran

20 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 18.11.2013

Date of Reservation      : 23.09.2022

Date of Order               : 20.10.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 304/2014

THURSDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

M.B. Anand Prasad,

Raj Tilak Apartments,

Plot No.12A, 14 & 15,

Jaswanth Nagar Extension,

Annamalai Avenue,

Mogappair West,

Chennai - 600 0040.                                                        …Complainant

 

-Vs-

1.M/S TATA MOTORS LIMITED,

   Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

   Having office at 24,

   Homi Modi Street,

   Nearby UTHISMA CHOWK,

   Opp: Central Bank, Mumbai - 400 001.

 

2.M/S TATA MOTORS LIMITED,

   Represented by its General Manager,

   Having office at 24, Homi Modi Street,

   Nearby UTHISMA CHOWK,

   Opp: Central Bank,

   Mumbai 400 001.

 

3. M/s TAFE REACH LIMITED,

 Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

 803, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

 

4.M/S TAFE REACH LIMITED (Service Centre),

   Represented by its DGM-Workshop,

   New No.43 (Old No.17) Greams Road,

   Chennai - 600 006.

 

5.M/S CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LIMITED,

   Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,

   Having office at 3^rd Floor,

   Nanavathi Mahalaya, 18,

   Homi Modi Street, Hothalam Chowk.

 

6.M/s.CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LIMITED,

   Represented by its General Manage,

   79,80 & 81, Ambattur Industrial Estate,

   Chennai – 600 058.

 

7.M/s TATA MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED,

   No.26/1, & 28/2, “Q” Block,

   6^th Avenue, Anna Nagar,

   Chennai -  600 040.                                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant                 : M/s. T. Surendran

Counsel for the 1^st&2^ndOpposite Parties   : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

Counsel for the 3^rd&4^thOpposite Parties   : M/s. K.S. Jeyaganeshan

Counsel for the 5^th & 6^th Opposite Parties : Exparte

Counsel for the 7^th Opposite Party           : M/s. S. Namasivayam

 

        On perusal of records, and upon hearing the oral argument of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,          

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to replace with a new car  or to pay a sum of Rs.4,94,748/- for the purchase of a new car and the interest amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and mental agony to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- and for the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties is calculated Rs.3,05,252/- which totalling to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/- along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

he Complainant had purchased TATA INDIA VISTA Car from 1^st Opposite Party with Chassis No. MAT 611250 APK 76705 and Engine No.323B66007073 through the 3^rd Opposite Party namely, M/s TAFE REACH LIMITED, Chennai with Registration No. TN 03 E 7853 on 25.02.2011. Delivery of the vehicle was taken from the dealer i.e., from the 3^rd Opposite Party M/ TAFE REACH LIMITED, Chennai on 07.03.2011 after paying insurance premium for Rs.5,50,000/- for the vehicle. He had also obtained finance for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- for the vehicle under Hire Purchase scheme from the 3^rdOpposite Party, namely, M/S TATA MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED and balance amount towards cost of the vehicle was paid by him. As he had faced problem with the functioning of the vehicle and the Air Conditioning provision of the vehicle was not working (AC stopped working) in one month itself on approximately 1500 Kilometres and he had given it to the 4^th Opposite Party namely M/S Tafe Reach Limited for first service. Though the 4^th Opposite Party serviced and returned the vehicle, the AC problem was not properly attended and after taking delivery also the car had the same problem and the AC was not working. He called the Service Centre and enquired about the non- working of the AC and for that the service personnel told him to keep the vehicle running and it would automatically work after some time. Believing the same he had also signed the documents for delivery of the vehicle but even then the AC was not working. Once again on 12.04.2011 he gave for service and paid a sum of Rs.5000/- for attending the AC and for full body anticorrosive coating but the AC problem in the car was not at all attended. On 17.06.2011 after it running 5317 kilometres, he had given for service and once again he reported for the same AC problem categorically and several times he insisted them that the AC was not working but purposefully the working condition of the AC was not reported and the same problem was persisting and he was not able to use the AC facility of the car since there was ice formation in the AC pipes and the AC was not working. Several times he called the service personnel at Service Centre and reported the same but the problem was not resolved. Hence he once again made a complaint on 31.05.2012 and understood that some components in the Control Panel were replaced when attending to the repairs in the AC. On the said complaint, after repair they informed that they had attended the AC problem and the same was working properly and he took delivery of the car believing in them but he found that the AC was still not functioning and the problem was not resolved by the 4^th Opposite Party. After that another new problem cropped up, the Radiator Fan was running at a very high speed for which he went to the Service Centre and left the vehicle once again on 11.06.2012 complaining about non-functioning of the AC and running of the Radiator Fan at very high speed. He was running the vehicle without AC for about 15 months from the date of purchase and suffered mental agony and torture. On the said date the vehicle was stopped while on move and then he called the towing service of TAFE REACH and complained about the problem. They took the vehicle for trouble shoot and reported that the problem was solved delivered the vehicle back to him knowing that the engine is ceased. Once again given the car for repair to the 4^th Opposite Party for the same complaint of non functioning of the AC and running of the Radiator Fan at very high speed and on 11.07.2012 and the vehicle was delivered back to him, the 4^th Opposite Party informed that the repair has been attended and at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle he had paid a sum of Rs.4291/- but the very next day the engine did not start. He once again left the car to the 4^th Opposite Party for repair. This time the temporary meter was not working. He was very much dejected in the manner in which the service was attended to by the service centre of the 3^rd Opposite Party. Hence he had no other option than to approach the 6^th Opposite Party, who asked him to bring the vehicle to their Servile Centre. On assurance they would definitely resolve all the problems and make the vehicle to run perfectly. He gave the vehicle to 6^th Opposite Party and paid a sum of Rs. 14,875/- vide Invoice dated 04.01.2013, in spite of the same to his shock the engine problem persisted and there was no change either in the Engine condition, nor in the AC or in the Radiator Fan and the repairs were not at all attended and the vehicle gave the same problem, though the engine was not starting and it developed smoke problem additionally. On 05.02.2013 once again he gave the vehicle to 6^th Opposite Party and it was informed that there was water pump problem, coolant leaking etc. but they had not attended any of the repair. It was orally informed to him that the engine was seized and asked him to take back the vehicle. He told them as to when the problem would be resolved and he was not aware of ceasing of the engine and believing in them he took back the vehicle to his home, but on the very next day when he tried to start the vehicle it was not at all starting and upon enquiry he came to know that the vehicle was immobilized by the computer lock by Concorde Motor (India) Ltd which has been done without informing him and he was unable to move the vehicle from that place. In the meantime M/S Tata Motor Finance, namely the 7^thOpposite Party pressurized him to pay the EMI as usual. Several times he informed them that the vehicle with manufacturing defect was given to him, which could not ply as usual. Hence it was unfair on their part to ask for payment and he suggested them to revert it back to the company namely M/S Tata Motors (India) Ltd and to resolve their finance issue and not to put pressure on him as after purchase of the aforesaid vehicle he suffered huge, mental agony, mental torture, loss of working days and he also compelled to use his two wheeler and as a result due to stress and tension caused he had met with an accident while he was driving the two wheeler, right leg injured and ligament was torn. He took special medical treatment involving much strain and hardship and expenses and loss of working and reputation due to no fault of him and after taking delivery of the vehicle which he purchased he was not afforded another car but he would not have suffered and met with the accident if the vehicle was running properly and smoothly without any repair. The vehicle was sold to him by the 1^st Opposite Party with manufacturing defect and knowing the same they had sold it to him through the dealer, the 3^rd Opposite Party and they had also been very negligent by not identifying the car with manufacturing defect and they ought to have withdrawn the same from selling it to anyone. The 5^th Opposite Party was also very negligent, lethargic and they had committed gross deficiency in service by not attending to any of the repair and each time whenever they gave delivery of the vehicle it gave another problem and they had given false promise that the repairs were attended and they had taken repair charges from him without properly attending to the repairs. M/S Concorde Motors India whom he had ultimately believed would at least resolved the problem and they also left him in lurch and they had went to the extent of ceasing of the motor engine and immobilized his car by software lock and he could not move the car anywhere and it created nuisance to his neighbours for which the 6^th Opposite Party alone was solely responsible. The manufacturer of the car namely M/S Tata Motors India Ltd was solely responsible and liable for supply the faulty car with manufacturing defect and it was co joint responsibility for selling faulty car with manufacturing defect and the Service Centre of the Company were also grossly liable and responsible for not attending to the fault and repairs of the vehicle though several times. He had reported and left the car for repair and they had also taken several huge sum as payment and they had wrongly advised him to drive the car in order to prevent the car from being withdrawn and to avoid exchanging of the vehicle within the warranty period for the manufacturing defect. Once the warranty was over they had washed off their hands cool and thrown out their responsibilities. The Concorde Motor India was grossly liable and responsible non attending to the repairs and resolves any of the problems as well as they are solely responsible for creating new problems and made him to suffer. Since the car was kept idle for a long time, the vehicle lost its value day by day and it was being affected by water and corrosion and the total vehicle would lose its value shortly. In the above said situation it was illegal for the Tata Motor Finance Company, namely the 7^th Opposite Party to insist for EMI to be paid when he had suffered huge loss, mental agony, stress and tension and for the loss and sufferings suffered and they are liable by exchanging the car with new car and also compensate him for the sufferings, mental agony and hardship and loss of employment etc. amounting to a sum of 19,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of his letter and they were also requested to take back the faulty car sold to him under Hire Purchase and relieve him of his Liabilities, otherwise may resort to legal proceedings against all the Opposite Parties for the gross negligence, deficiency in service, dereliction of responsibilities and for the mental agony, loss and sufferings caused to him. Till date, his grievance has not been redressed by the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3.   Written Version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

      As a matter of business practice, they do not deal with any customer for sale of the new car or vehicle, hence cannot comment what transpired between the Complainant and the 3^rd Opposite Party at the time of sale. However, it may be noted that all the cars manufactured by these Opposite Parties undergo strict quality checks, certified and thereafter dispatched to the dealers across the country. The car sold at the dealership point also undergoes pre-delivery inspection and being satisfied with the condition and performance of the car, it is sold to the consumers and in this case also, the said process ought to have followed at the 3^rd Opposite Party. These Opposite Parties have been further given to understand that there was no problem with the car at the time of delivery and the Complainant had taken the delivery after proper inspection and satisfaction and the same ought to have acknowledged by the Complainant in the vehicle delivery acknowledgement note.It was strenuously denied that car in question has reported for any repair/service after one month from the date of purchase at 1,500 kms or around 1,500 kms for a/c problems, as the Complainant reported for the first time on or around 12.04.2011 at 2,049 kms (approx) to the 4^th Opposite Party for 1^st free service along with the purported complaints of poor mileage & front suspension noise wherein scheduled service & standard checks were done and the purported complaints were addressed satisfactorily by cleaning air filter, adjusting fuel injection suspension pump and tightening & lubricating front suspension bolt nut under warranty. Also, added service of full body antirust and the same was done on costs basis. The complaint in a/c was neither reported by the Complainant nor observed by the workshop. Car of the Complainant was reported on or around 17.06.2011 at 5377 kms. (approx.) to the 4^th Opposite Party for 2^nd  free service apart from the problems of check noise from front suspension at bumpy road, check steering wheel wobbling at 100 kmph speed & gear lever when recommended services like tyre rotation, wiper washer, etc. & general checks were done and were attended by tightening all suspension bolts under warranty. The Complainant had not any such issue in a/c during that visit as well. Subsequently, the car reported on or around 11.09.2011 at 10,543 kms. (approx.) for 3^rd free service wherein the Complainant has reported the complaint of a/c cooling insufficient for the first time along with a complaint of hard suspension when maintenance services like wheel alignment, wheel balancing, wiper wash was carried out and the asserted complaints were not confirmed in the car. Also, the Complainant had requested to carry out the added service of interior cleaning and the same was done on paid basis. The car was then reported on or around 31.05.2012 at 20,273 kms summer campaign for the issues of glow & suspension noise wherein a/c free checkup campaign was done and the issues were set right by changing a/c control panel, stabilizer link assy, arb bearing block & auxiliary tank assy, under warranty. Afterwards, the car reported on or around 11.06.2012 at 20,301 kms (approx) for the problem of check engine noise and was redressed by replacing raditor fan with shroud under warranty. The subject car next reported on or around 09.11.2012 at 24,978 kms. (approx) for the complaints of vehicle gets off, AC fan running continuously, engine coolant leakage & windshield wipers not working properly and was attended by checking radiator fan, removing & refitting a/c actuator, checking a/c cooling and replacing thermostat under warranty. Also Consumable and wear & tear items like coolant, air filter & wiper blade were changed on charge basis as per the warranty policy. There was no problem in the engine mentioned by the Complainant during that visit. Later, the car reported on or around 04.01.2013 at 27,753 kms. (approx.) to the 6^th Opposite Party for 30,000 kms, service along with the issues of radiator fan running continuously & front RHS suspension noise wherein scheduled services like brake OCA, wheel balancing, wheel alignment, change of engine oil, oil filter, air filter, fuel filter, etc. were carried out and the asserted issues were made right by checking radiator fan & tightening under chassis bolt nut free of costs. Also, value added services of 3M interior enrichment treatment & autokrom a/c protection was done on costs basis upon request from the Complainant. The said car thereafter reported on or around 16.02.2013 at 29,020 kmsfor the problems of coolant leakage high & vehicle not able to start wherein after inspection, it was found that engine overhauling & fuel injection pump work has to be done for the redressal of the problems. The 6^th Opposite Party had informed the said fact to the Complainant and has requested his approval to carry out the said jobs on paid basis as the car was out of warranty. However, the Complainant had refused to carry out the desired jobs, for the reasons best known to him and has taken the car without any repairs. It was strenuously denied that the car was immobilized by 6^th Opposite Party by any computer lock. Moreover, the observations recorded by the service advisor would clearly establish that whatever complaints raised by the Complainant, were running complaints and recommended services, which required to be attended for extensive usage and improper maintenance of the car. It may be elucidated that finance of the car is a bi-partite transaction between the Complainant and the financier, the 7^th Opposite Party wherein they have no role to play. It may be further elucidated that car in question has run for approximately 29,020 kms within 24 months from the date of sale till its last visit on 16.02.2013 at a mileage of 1,209 kms (approx) per month, which clearly implies that there was no defect in the car and the Complainant has plied the car extensively. Had there been any manufacturing defects, the car would not have covered around 29,020 kms. Further, the Complainant has intentionally rejected to carry out the jobs of engine overhaul & FIP work as suggested by the workshop and has taken back the car without any repairs. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that car of the Complainant has been repossessed by the 7^thOpposite Party and has also been sold to a third party. The Complainant has, with an ill-motive, concealed the fact about repossession & sale from the Hon'ble Forum. They have been also given to understand that there was an outstanding amount payable by the Complainant to the 7^thOpposite Party, even after sale and the 7^th Opposite Party has now taken steps to recover the outstanding amount the Complainant. Thus, it was apparent that the Complainant has filed this instant complaint making baseless allegations of manufacturing defects in the car only to counterblast the outstanding claim of the 7^th Opposite Party. The Complainant had alleged a bald statement about selling a car with manufacturing defects without producing expert report from an authorised laboratory as per the provisions of the Act and in absence of the same, the allegations are baseless and misconceived and merits dismissal. Further submitted that whatever grievance has been brought by the Complainant, the same was attended and rectified satisfactorily under the warranty policy free of costs by way of exceptional services provided by the workshop hence, there could not be any question of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service meriting replacement of the car. Their workshop was ready to repair the car when it reported on 16.02.2013 however, the Complainant, himself, has decided not to carry out the desired job works in the car. There was no privity of contract between the Complainant and them with respect to finance of the car. Upon receipt of the legal notice, the answering Opposite Parties had thoroughly investigated the issues raised by the Complainant wherein the claims made by the Complainant were found to be devoid of any merits and thus, no action was taken by the answering Opposite Parties.  The problems as experienced and alleged by the Complainant were running repairs and arose during the course of normal use and maintenance faults of the Complainant and it cannot be treated as inherent defects in the car. They had attended to car under warranty whenever it was reported to the workshop. But, the warranty of the car has lapsed when it was reported on 16.02.2013 and thus, the workshop had requested the Complainant to give approval to carry out the repairs under charge basis, which the Complainant failed to do so. There was no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties. Needless to mention that new owner of the car is operating the car without any hassle and the car has covered 32.250 kms till its last visit on or around 29.05.2014. Under the circumstances, it is evident that there was no manufacturing defect in the car in question as the car is still being operated in a good condition. Thus, no cause of action ever arose in favour of the Complainant against these Opposite Parties, Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      Written Version filed by the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties in brief are as follows:-

         The purchase of the car from the 3^rd Opposite Party and the details of the car were admitted. It was denied that the Complainant had used the car for about 1500 Kms and the AC of the vehicle was not working during the first service itself as the vehicle was left for service at 2049 kms only and two defects were reported, i.e, for Poor Mileage and Suspension noise. The said defects were rectified and antirust treatment also done. The vehicle was left for service at 5377 kms and not on 5317 kms and the same was left on 17.06.2011. The defects reported by the Complainant was steering wheel wobbling at 100kms, gear lever and noise of the front suspension. The 2^ndservice was done and the other standard checks were done and the complaints made by the Complainant were also rectified. The AC was not working and the same was made to the notice of this Opposite Party was not accepted. The Complainant had brought the vehicle to this Opposite Party for 3^rdservice on 11.09.2011 only at that service the Complainant had reported insufficient of the AC cooling and hardness in suspension. The defects were rectified and the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant and the vehicle was taken by the Complainant with full satisfaction. The Complainant after the service on 11.09.2011 had brought the vehicle for service on 31.05.2012 at 20273 kms reading, the defects to be rectified as per the Complainant were insufficient cooling and same hardness in suspension. The AC control panel was replaced, coolant tank replaced, stabilizer bush replaced stabilizer link ball joint replaced under warranty and AC free check up was done under the campaign. The Complainant was driving the car without AC is to be proved. The vehicle was reported with this Opposite Party on 11.06.2012 with running 20301 kms with the complaints engine noise level high and general checkup. The AC defect was not at all mentioned by the Complainant. They had replaced the radiator fan motor with shroud under warranty.  The Vehicle was reported as breakdown with 24978 kms running and they had done the breakdown service. The complaints reported were cold starting trouble vehicle gets off, AC noise, AC fan continuously running, coolant leak and windshield wiper not working properly were the defects reported. They had done the radiator fan checked, AC actuator was removed and refitted, AC cooling was checked, Thermostat housing was replaced, coolant replaced air filter was replaced, wiper blade was replaced and also the breakdown service was attended to and delivered to the Complainant and he took the vehicle with satisfaction. The services done with the 6^thOpposite Party is not within the knowledge of this Opposite Party. The service done by this Opposite Party was done at high standards since the service personnel and the machineries used are of the state of art class. The Complainant had also taken the vehicle with full satisfaction from them. There is neither negligence nor deficiency on their part, as they have rectified all the complaints reported with this Opposite Party whenever it reported during service and hence they are not liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      Written Version filed by the 7^th Opposite Party in brief are as follows:-

        The Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine as there was no prayer against them. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties. The Complainant had filed the complaint only to evade repaying the outstanding loan amount. For better appreciation of the case, it was narrated that they are engaged in the business of providing financial facilities for purchase of vehicles and they have enormous reputation. Its policy of lending, prescription of interest, penal interest, surcharge and all other charges are determined on the basis of the guidelines issued from time to time for the purpose. All their transactions are transparent and are submitted to scrutiny by anyone including the Complainant. They have a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for its directors. On 17.03.2011 the Complainant entered into a Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee agreement with them for auto loan. Based on the agreement they sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,20,000 repayable in 60 Equated Monthly installments of Rs 9460/- for the purchase of Tata India Vista. The loan was on 17.03.2011 and repayment was to end in February in 2016. Under Clause 18 of the Agreement in the event of default in payment they are entitled to recall the loan and under Clause 18.6 they have power to repossess the vehicle under hypothecation without any further notice. Under Clause 18.7 they have power to sell the assets either through public auction or private contract. The Complainant has failed to repay the Equated Monthly Installments regularly. Only to preempt them from seeking its legitimate dues from the Complainant, the Complaint was filed, which was pure abuse of the process of law.As they are only exercising its legal right in demanding its legitimate dues as the loan was obtained by the Complainant only after signing an Agreement and he now is estopped from claiming exemption for no fault of them and on grounds that they were not related. The Complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount in his loan account and they are only demanding its legitimate dues of the Loan Account, there is neither any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice. By including them in the complaint the Complainant is trying not only to evade the dues but also to make mala fide enrichment. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15  were marked. The 1^st and 2^ndOpposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and no document was marked on their side. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and Ex.B-3 alone was marked on their side. The 7^th Opposite Party submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2 document were marked on their side.

7.     The 5^th and 6^thOpposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even sufficient notice served and set exparte.

 

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had purchased TATA INDICA VISTA Car of the 1^st Opposite Party through the 3^rd Opposite Party, being the dealer of the 1^st Opposite Party and the same was Registered with Registration No. TN 03 E 7853 on 25.02.2011. The Delivery of the subject vehicle was taken from the 3^rd Opposite Party on 07.03.2011.

It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had availed loan for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- for the subject vehicle under Hire Purchase scheme from the 7^th Opposite Party.

It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had serviced the subject vehicle with the 4^th Opposite Party, being the service centre of the 3^rd Opposite Party and had also serviced the subject vehicle with the 5^th Opposite Party.

The disputed facts are that the Complainant had reported about non-working of Air Conditioner (AC) in the subject vehicle when he left the same for first service at 1500 kms on 12.04.2001, with the 4^th Opposite Party, and had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- for attending the AC. The vehicle was returned without attending the AC. Even after the service he had faced with AC issue and reported the same, when he left the car for 2^nd service at 5317 kms on 17.06.2011, with the 4^th Opposite Party, but the said problem was not resolved. He complained about the same and he had left the vehicle for repair on 31.05.2012, in spite of the service done by the 4^th Opposite Party, the AC was not working. On 11.06.2012 for attending the same, on which date the subject vehicle was stopped on move and called for towing service of 3^rd / 4^th Opposite Party, who took the vehicle for repairs, during which time radiator fan was running in high speed and also for non-functioning of AC, were reported, after service retuned the vehicle to him, as he was using the Subject vehicle with AC for about 15 months from the date of purchase. Again on 11.07.2012 for the said two issues of Radiator Fan and non-working of AC, he left the Vehicle for service to the 4^th Opposite Party and had paid a sum of Rs.4291/-, after service returned back to him. The next day engine did not start and the temporary meter was not working. As he was dejected with the service of the Opposite Party he approached the 6^th Opposite Party who had assured to resolve the issues completely and to run the subject vehicle in road worthy condition and on assurance he had paid Rs.14,875/- as per their Invoice dated 04.01.2013, in spite of their service on receipt of huge sum, there was no change in the engine condition nor in the AC or in Radiator fan and the engine did not started and developed smoke problem additionally. Hence on 05.02.2013 he left the vehicle to the 6^th Opposite Party, who informed that it was because of water pump problem and coolant leakage and it was also informed orally that the engine was seized and to take back the vehicle. He was not aware of seizure of engine and when he started the vehicle next day the vehicle did not start and on enquiry he come to know that the vehicle was immobilised by computer lock by the 6^th Opposite Party. The 7^th Opposite Party pressurised him to pay the monthly instalments under the loan agreement, in spite of the vehicle could not be used in an usual manner and when he suffered huge mental agony, loss of working day, because of which he met with an accident when he was driving two wheeler and sustained injury of right leg ligament tear, for which he took special treatment. The 1^st Opposite Party through 3^rd Opposite Party had sold the subject vehicle with manufacturing defects and the 4^th Opposite Party in spite of taking repair charges, acted in negligent and lethargic manner, by false promises without attending the repairs properly and the 6^th Opposite Party went to extent of ceasing the motor engine and immobilised his car by software lock. The 1^st& 2^nd Opposite Parties sold the subject vehicle with manufacturing defects through their dealer, the 3^rd Opposite Party and their service centre had failed to carry out the repairs reported by him, in spite of receipt of huge sum till the warranty period and after the warranty period they washed their hands. Hence all the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate him by replacing a new car or to pay the price of the car, for interest amount, for mental agony and for negligence.

The Contention of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in this regard was that the subject vehicle has no manufacturing defects and the Complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers manufacturing defects. The issues that had been reported by the Complainant has been attended by their service centres with full satisfaction of the Complainant, as found in Ex.A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-11 to A-13 and if at all the subject vehicle suffers with manufacturing defects, the vehicle could not have run 29020 kms within 24 months from the date of purchase, i.e, till 06.02.2013, the date of last service done at 6^th Opposite Party service centre, as found in Ex.13. Having availed loan from the 7^th Opposite Party, the Complainant with false and baseless allegations and by suppressing the fact that he had committed default as found in Ex.B-2 and the subject vehicle was repossessed by the 7^th Opposite Party, with ill motive, concealing the fact of repossession had filed the above complaint. The subject vehicle was serviced last on 29.05.2014 at 32,250 kms as found in Ex.B-3 and hence there was no manufacturing defects in the subject vehicle.

The Contentions of the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties were that the Complainant had not reported about non-working of AC till the 2^nd free service, as found in Ex.A-5 and A-6, and only 31.05.2012 it was reported about AC issue and the same was rectified by replacing with relevant parts under warranty and free of cost, as found in Ex.A-8. The Receipt dated 12.04.2011, Ex.A-5 was issued by them towards payment made for full body antirust done at the request of Complainant and Ex.A-10 the receipt dated 10.11.2012 was issued by them towards service of the Vehicle done, after warranty period. Hence whenever the subject vehicle was left for service by the Complainant, they had attended the reported repairs, which would be evidenced by the Tax invoices issued by them and the same were marked as exhibits by the Complainant, as mentioned.

The Contention of the 7^th Opposite Party was that being the Financier, under the Loan Agreement entered into by the Complainant, they were entitled to claim for legitimate dues and the Complainant was a defaulter and as per Clause 18.6 of the Agreement they were entitled to repossess the vehicle on default in monthly payments and under clause 18.7 of the agreement they have power to sell the repossessed vehicle. Only to evade the claim of legitimate dues, the Complainant had filed the above complaint and there was no prayer against them. 

On discussions made above and on perusal of the exhibits marked on the side of Complainant and 3^rd& 4^th and 7^th Opposite Parties, it is clear from Ex.A-5 in page No.7, Tax Invoice dated 12.04.2011, it was found that the vehicle was left for service at 2094 kms and not at 1500 kms, with the 4^th Opposite Party and the service request made was for first free service and no complaint regarding non-working of AC was found to be reported to the 4^th Opposite Party and the sum of Rs.5,000/- was found to be received towards Full body Antirust treatment with Tax. As per Ex.A-6, Tax Invoice dated 17.06.2011, it was found that the vehicle was left for service at 5377 kms and not at 5317 kms, with the 4^th Opposite Party and the service request made was for second free service and no complaint regarding non-working of AC was found to be reported to the 4^th Opposite Party. From Ex.A-8, Tax Invoice dated 31.05.2012, the vehicle was attended in Summer Camp and the vehicle was reported having run 20,273 kms with a service request of Running repairs and the same was carried under warranty. From Ex.A-9, Tax Invoice dated 11.06.2012 the vehicle was reported having run 20,301 kms with a service request of Running repairs and the Assy Fan with Shroud worth Rs.5042.79p was replaced under warranty, where again no complaint regarding non-working of AC was found to be reported to the 4^th Opposite Party and further importantly the subject vehicle was not found to be struck off and no such tow was made by the 4^th Opposite Party and as per Ex.A-11 the Tax Invoice dated 31.12.2012 of the 6^th Opposite Party, the vehicle was found to be off road and helpline charges of Rs.550/- found to be collected. No proof has been produced to show that the subject vehicle was left for service on 11.07.2012 and for payment of Rs.4291/- made on 11.07.2012, only a receipt dated 10.11.2012 for a sum of Rs.3291/- towards service of the subject vehicle done by the 4^th Opposite Party was produced, which was marked as Ex.A-10. As per Ex.A-11 the Tax Invoice dated 31.12.2012 of the 6^th Opposite Party, the vehicle was found to be off road and helpline charges of Rs.550/- found to be collected and the service request was Paid service and a receipt dated 02.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.14,875/- as found in Page no.22 of Ex.A-11 was issued by the 6^th Opposite Party. As per Ex.A-12 the vehicle was found to be received with coolant leakage and the vehicle was not able to start and as per Ex.A-13 Tax invoice dated 06.02.2013 Water pump and R & R Fuel Injection pump were found to be replaced free of cost. Hence the 4^th and 6^th Opposite Parties as service agents had diligently attended and caried out the repair works and there was no fault found on the 4^th and 6^th Opposite Parties.

It is also found that the Non-working of AC was not reported on 12.04.2011, 17.06.2011, 31.05.2012, 11.06.2012, when the subject vehicle was left for 1^st and 2^nd free service or on paid services, as found in Ex.A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9 and Ex.B-3. Further the subject vehicle was serviced last on 29.05.2014 at 32,250 kms as found in Ex.B-3, which was not denied by the Complainant. The Complainant had not produced any valid documentary evidence or any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers with manufacturing defects as alleged by him.

The Learned Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 29.03.2006 in Appeal (Civil) No.3734 of 2000 in Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Another, wherein it was held that “The warranty condition clearly refers to the replacement of defective parts and not of the car. Observations made in the Corpus Juris Secundrum had been read out of context. It was stated that at the most the Commission and the High Court could have asked for the replacement of the defective part or to pay the cost thereof”. In the instant case the Complainant had sought for replacement of the subject vehicle, though the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party being the authorised service agent of 1^st Opposite Party, had replaced the relevant parts of the subject vehicle found for replacement under warranty, as evidenced from Ex.A-8 and Ex.A-9.

The Learned Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had also relied upon the Order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in I (2010) CPJ 19 (NC) in Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Another, wherein it was observed that “ since car in question ran smoothly and trouble free for about 16 months from the time of its purchase it is itself indicative of the fact that there was no manufacturing defect. That apart, there was no finding of any person having know-how or technical knowledge in such matters about there being defect in the vehicle.” In instant case the subject vehicle was purchased on 07.03.2011 and found to be run without any major defects till 16.02.2013, which was about 23 months from the date of its purchase, till it was serviced by the 4^th and 6^th Opposite Party, as found in Ex.B-3. Further as discussed above, the Complainant had not produced any valid documentary evidence or any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle suffers with manufacturing defects as alleged by him.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the above mentioned Judgements, we hold that the Complainant had failed to prove the subject vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects and hence there was no manufacturing defects as alleged by the Complainant, and the Opposite Parties 3 to 6, being the authorized dealers and authorized service agents of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, had attended the repairs reported by the Complainant and acted diligently, as evidenced from the exhibits discussed above. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 6 and demanding legitimate dues under the Loan agreement entered into by the Complainant with the 7^th Opposite Party, being the Financier, who had extended loan to the Complainant, would not amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 7^th Opposite Party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 &3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. And hence the Complainant is also not entitled for any other relief/s.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 20^th of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	25.02.2011	Copy of the invoice
Ex.A2	-	Copy of the R.c.Book
Ex.A3	07.03.2011	Copy of Private Car Package Policy Certificate & Schedule
Ex.A4	09.03.2011	Delivery Challan of TAFE Reach Ltd
Ex.A5	12.04.2011	Tax invoice & receipt of TAFE Reach
Ex.A6	17.06.2011	Receipt & Tax invoice of TAFE Rech
Ex.A7	10.09.2011	Job Slip of TAFE Reach Ltd
Ex.A8	31.05.2012	Tax invoice of TAFE Reach Ltd
Ex.A9	11.06.2012	Tax invoice of TAFE Reach Ltd
Ex.A10	10.11.2012	Receipt of TAFE Reach Ltd
Ex.A11	04.01.2013	Tax Invoice of Concord
Ex.A12	05.02.2013	Job Slip from Concord Motor
Ex.A13	16.02.2013	Tax Invoice of Concord
Ex.A14	-	Repayment schedule given by TATA Motors
Ex.A15	08.06.2013	Legal notice issued by the Complainant’s Counsel with Ack. Card

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 7^th Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1		Copy of Power of Attorney
Ex.B2	-	Cop of TATA Motors Finace Ltd (Contract Details)

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 3^rd & 4^th Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B3

Copy of Job Card

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT