Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/432/2018

R.APaul Doss, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.TATA V.S.T.Motors, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Sampath Kumar& Associate.

22 Jul 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :03.12.2012           Date of disposal            :22.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.432/2018

 

DATED FRIDAY THE 22^nd  DAY JULY OF 2022

R.A.Paul Doss,

S-5, Bora Apartments,

No.41, Chitlapakkam First Street,

Chrompet, Chennai-600 044.

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

1).     M/s.TATAV.S.T.Motors,

Rep. by its Manager-Sales,

Gove Building,

199, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 002.

2).     The Manager (law),

          M/s.TATA Motors Ltd.,

          Rep.by its Manager (LAW)

          Passenger Car Business Unit,

          14^th Floor, Canberra Towers,

          UB City, 24, VittalMallya Road,

          Bangalore-560 001.

3).     M/s. TATA Motors,

          Rep. by its Managing Director,

          Bombay House,

          24, HomiMody Street,

          Mumbai- 400 001.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. Sampathkumar& Associates &

                                                          R.Ramani

 

Counsel for  1^st  opposite party                    : M/s. K.V.Rajan&G.VardiniKarthik

 

Counsel for  2^nd& 3^rd opposite party           : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.8,07,472/- towards the car value and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay cost for this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 292/2012.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.432/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased TATA indigo manzaquadra aura plus car from the opposite party show room on 23.04.2011 under reg no. TN 22 CZ 4308 on the date of taking delivery the car was dirty and unpolished.  The 1^st opposite party show room staff compelled the complainant to take deliver and promised him that the car will be given new look after a few days.  Since it was easter festival day the complainant was forced to take delivery of the car without any satisfaction.  The complainant in fact purchased diesel version of the car.  But the RC book which was handed over to him showed as if it is petrol version.  When he pointed out this blunder the staff attached to the 1^st opposite party shown gave him a new RC book.  He was perplexed to see two different RC book for the same car. On further scrutiny of the RC book it showed an entry that the car was delivered on the fourth quarter of 2010.  Thus the RC book handed over to the complainant had lots of discrepancies. Further RC book showed December 2010 as month and year of manufacturing where as policy showed that the model is of the year 2011.  The insurance policy initially issued by 1^st opposite party was from new india assurance Ltd.  Subsequently another policy was issued from new india assurance co. Ltd., showing the year of manufacture as 2011 which is correct.  Thus there is a discrepancy between the RC book and insurance policy on the point of year of manufacture of car. The car was delivered with defective left side switch box not fixed properly with the left hand rest, showing manufacturing defects.  Even after free service done by 1^st opposite party.  The defect have not been rectified.  The complainant could not adjust window mirror.  The defect was not attended after free service of 5000/10000 kms.  But the1st opposite party changed oil during 10000kms/  which was not brought knowledge of the complainant. The 1^st opposite party has delivered was with manufacturing defect.  The 1^st opposite party did not metal number plates for the car.  Instead the 1^st opposite party fitted plastic number plates which the complainant did not note initially.  On 16.11.2011 the complainant was fined by the traffic police violation of traffic rules.  The 1^st opposite party delivered the car to the complainant without the proper quality check.The car had all manufacturing defects. The complainant submitted that 1^st opposite party service unit to rectify the defects of the car, the 1^st opposite party failed and neglected to rectify the defects.  Emails have been exchanged between the complainant and the opposite party 18.01.2012. The complainant sent notice on 10.04.2012 to opposite parties and the reply dated 17.04.2022 was sent to 2^nd opposite party assuring the complainant that if his case was bonafide and justified the defect would be resolved. The opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,07,472/- towards the value of the car. Hence the complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^stOPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased TATA Indigo ManzaQuandra Aura from the 1^st opposite party on 23.04.2011 under Regn No. TN 22 CZ 4308.  Further allegation that car was dirty and unpolished and PDI was not done are untrue. The 1^st opposite party submitted that it forced the complainant to take delivery of car on Easter day and also the complainant sent the photographs of the dirty car to 1^st opposite party GM sales is false. The 1^st opposite party refunded a cheque of Rs.1,400/- bearing Cheque No.00480189 dated:25.05.2011 being the excess amount received from the complainant and also polished & cleaned the vehicle to satisfy the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the RC book showed the car as Petrol version and the year of manufacture as 2010 whereas the Insurance policy showed as 2011. The 1^st opposite party stated that there was an error in RC book about the type of fuel.  It is further stated that the complainant did not want a corrected RC book and hence, the 1^st opposite party arranged with the RTO for a new RC book at their cost. The 1^st opposite party stated that the vehicle is of 2010 model and the year of manufacture shown in the insurance cover as 2011 was a wrong one and should be 2010 only.  The 1^st opposite party stated that at the time of servicing the vehicle the spare parts to set right the side switch box and left window mirror were not available and the same was immediately done on receipt of the spare parts from the manufacturer.  The 1^st opposite party further stated that oral permission was given by the complainant to change the oil and 10,000km service. The 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant was given a price discount of Rs.72900/- from the total cost of the vehicle.  Apart from the above he is not eligible for further discount which fact the complainant is fully aware and thereafter has come forward to purchase the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and is not liable to pay compensation for mental agony.

3.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THEOPPOSITE PARTY 2 and 3 IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had failed to follow the guidelines given in the owners manual  and however the complainant has not produced any records to show that the complainant had regularly serviced the car as per the recommended service schedule the car in question thrice met with accident and brought to TVS automobiles workshop which was not added as party and hence contended the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion with regard to alleged manufacturing defects in the car. The car has covered around 30297 kmsin  a year which shows that it was in road worthy condition and further contended the grievances reported by the complainant were promptly attempted by the opposite party and a manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the car or refund price merely because of some defect which can be rectified.  With regard to the wrong year of manufacture in the RC book and in the insurance policy  there is no privities of contract between the complainant and  the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite and further contended  as there was no manufacturing defect proved by complainant the opposite parties 2 and 3 are not liable to answer the claim of the complainant.          

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A10 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                   The complainant purchased TATA indigo manzaquadra aura plus from the 1^st opposite party on 23.04.2011 at the time of taking delivery the car was dirty and unpolished the complainant was compelled by the staff of the opposite party to take delivery and promised that the car will be given a new look in few days subsequently the complainant found that in the RC book handed over to him it was wrongly entered as petrol version instead of diesel version when it was pointed out the staff of the 1^st opposite party gave him a new RC book with correct version further in the RC book the manufacture was shown as December 2010 where as the policy shown model of 2011 there was discrepancy.  Further the car was delivered with defective lift side switch box not fixed properly and hence left window mirror could not be adjusted which was not rectified even after several free service further the 1^st opposite party did not fit metal number plate instead fitted with plastic number plate and hence the car was fined by the traffic police on 16.11.2011 and contended that the car was having manufacturing defects and delivered without proper quality check and several E-mails were sent to opposite party and hence the complainant has claim Rs.8,07,472/- towards the value of the car and other reliefs.

          5. The 1^st opposite party denied the allegations that the car was delivered dirty and unpolished condition and further contended that as there was error in the year of manufacture in the about the type of fuel in the RC book since the complainant did not want a correction a new RC book was arranged by the 1^st opposite party at their cost and further contended that the vehicle is of 2010 model and in the insurance policy the year of manufacture is wrongly shown as 2011 but, the complainant is not affected in any way since, the correct year is mentioned in the RC book and further alleged that at the time of servicing the vehicle the spare parts to set right the switch box and left window mirror were not available and the same was done on receipt of spare parts from the manufacturer and engine oil was changed at 10,000 kms based on oral permission given by the complainant and further the complainant was already a price discount of Rs.72,900/- from the total cost of vehicle  and hence not eligible for amount of Rs.5,000/- available to corporate employees and therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service by the 1^st opposite party.

          6. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party mainly contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the car met with an accident thrice and brought to workshop of TVS automobile solution limited which was suppressed by the complainant and hence contended that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and further contended that the car was delivered after carrying out three delivery inspection by the dealer the car was checked at the workshop for quality inspector and the complainant has not filed any expert opinion to prove that the car had manufacturing problem and in the absence of the same it cannot be contended that the car had manufacturing defect the problems as and when raised  were duly attended and there is no outstanding issue in the car and therefore contended that there is no merits in the complaint.

          7. The documents pertaining to purchase of car were marked as Ex.A1.  Ex.A4 to A6 were emails correspondence between the complainant and opposite party. It  is found from Ex.A1 page no.5 the vehicle delivery acknowledgement that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle in good condition and he has also signed in the same, it is further found in Ex.A1 page no.11 that no charges were imposed by the 1^st opposite party for the number plate in the RC book the year of manufacture is shown as 2010 with diesel version which was rectified promptly by the 1^st  opposite party at the request of the complainant which cannot constitute deficiency in service.  The complainant has filed Ex.A10 the to show the damaged parts of  the car.  Though it is alleged that the complainant vehicle was fined by traffic police in respect of number plate violation it is found from Ex.A4 page no.45 the challan and receipt were issued in the name of Pandiarajan who is shown as owner and therefore the said receipt is not pertaining to the disputed vehicle.  For the emails sent by the complainant and also for the legal notice the 1^st opposite party has sent a reply suitably denying the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  It is found from Ex.B5 and B6 during the 2^nd free service the AC relay was replaced and out side mirror was also renewed by the 1^st opposite party on 10.01.2011, it is further found that engine oil was changed at 10,000 kms only at the oral request of the complainant which cannot be alleged as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It is found from the documents filed by the opposite party that whatever defects brought by the complainant the same was attended and rectified by the opposite parties and there was no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party 2 and 3 relied upon a  decision reported by Nation Commission in Revision Petition No. 1652 of 2006 Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and others Vs. Dr. BirendraNarain Prasad and others and contended that the Hon’ble Supreme court  have held in many cases that without opinion of an expert liability of the manufacturer would be limited to removal of defect and replacement of parts and merely because the vehicle was taken to the workshop several times and because number of letters and complaints were addressed to various authorities that alone will not amount to manufacturing defect.  Opposite party 2 and 3 also relied upon decision in MarutiUdyog ltd VsSusheelkumarGdgotra and anr dated:29.03.2006 Appeal (civil )No.3734/2007 and contended that the warranty condition clearly refer to the replacement of defective part and not the car and therefore contented the defective parts were replaced by the opposite party during the service and hence contended that there is no need to replace the car as prayed by the complaint. There is much force in the contention raised by the opposite party. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party also relied on a decision reported in Civil appeal No. 574/2021 Supreme Court Tata Motors Limited Vs  Antonio Paulo Vaz and Anr and contended that liability cannot be fastened on upon the manufacturer who is not aware of the physical condition of the car a year after delivery of the same.  Forthe above said reasons it is found that the complainant failed to prove that the car had manufacturing defect  by giving any expert evidence and further the complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of oppositeparties as alleged in the complaint. Point no. 1 answered accordingly.

8. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given to point. No.1.  It is found that there was no deficiency in service of or manufacturing defect and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  The complainant counsel during the course of argument filed a memo along with a mail sent by the complainant and stated that the car was sold in the year 2021 September by the complainant therefore the cause of action does not survived at present and the subsequent owner was not added as party and on that score also the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant counsel in the memo prayed to close the above case hence, as per the findings given to point no.1 the  complainant is not entitled to  seek for replacement of the car and for other reliefs claimed in the complaint and the complaint devoid of merits and hence the same is dismissed. Point.no.2 is answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22^nd  day of  July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	12.04.2011	Document Pertaining to Purchase of new car                     Under Regn.No TN-22-CZ4308
Ex.A2	20.01.2012	E.Mail Correspondence from the Complainant to opposite  along with Xerox copy of the damaged parts of the car
Ex.A3	23.02.2011	Cash receipt issued by the opposite party along with Tax invoice
Ex.A4	01.03.2012	Èmail from complainant to opposite party with xerox copy of the photos
Ex.A5		Email from opposite party to complainant
Ex.A6	18.01.2012	Email from opposite party to complainant
Ex.A7	10.04.2012	Notice from complainant’s counsel to opposite parties
Ex.A8	17.04.2012	letterfrom opposite party to complainant’s counsel.
Ex.A9	22.05.20212	Reply from opposite parties counsel to complainant’s counsel
Ex.A10		photographs

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^stOPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1	29.09.2011	Pick up service/Repair Request Form by 1st OP
Ex.B2	01.10.2011	Tax Invoice by 1st OP for Service done
Ex.B3	10.04.2012	Notice by Complainant’s Advocate
Ex.B4	22.05.2012	Reply Sent by 1st OP

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd and 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B5		Copy of PDI report
Ex.B6	29.09.2011	Job card and tax invoice
Ex.B7	01.10.2011	Tax invoice

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT