| First Appeal No. A/1055/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 26 Apr 2017 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 10/03/2017 in Case No. C/63/2015 of District Chikmagalur) |
| | | | 1. Auto Matrix | | Jyothi Nagar Near APMC Yard, Kadur Road, Chikmagalur-2. | | 2. The Manager, Auto Matrix | | NH-48, Thanniruhala, B.M. Road, Hassan. Both Appellant No.1 & 2 are Rep. by Raghunanandan H.S. General Manager, Auto Matrix, N.H.48, Taneruhalla B.M. Road, Hass |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Nagarathnamma | | W/o B.R.Subramanya, aged about 45 years, R/o Bhuvanakote, Uttameshwara Post, Koppa Taluk, Chikmagalur-2. | | 2. The Manager, TATA Motors Limited | | Retiral Section, Shared Services, D-9, Block, Pimpri Pune-411018. |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
| | First Appeal No. A/1621/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 28 Jul 2017 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District Chikmagalur) |
| | | | 1. The Manager | | Tata Motors Ltd., Retiral Section, Shared Services, D-9 block, Pimpri, Pune-411018. Rep. by its Authorised signatory and Manager Legal Mr.Arjun.G.S. |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Smt.Nagarathnamma | | W/o B.R.Subramanya, Aged about 45 years, R/a Bhuvanakote, Uttameshwara post, Koppa Tq., Chikkamagalur | | 2. The Manager | | Auto Matrix, Thaniruhalla, B.M.road, Hassan. | | 3. M/s Auto Matrix | | Jyothinagar, Near APMC yard Kadur road, Chikmagalur-2 |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Dtd.05.08.2022 COMMON ORDER IN A/1055 & 1621/2017 BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER - These two appeals are filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.1 to 3/Appellants/Dealer and Manufacturer aggrieved by the order dtd.10.03.2017 passed in CC/63/2015 on the file of Chickmagaluru District Forum.
- The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of appeal and heard the learned counsels.
- The Complainant raised consumer complaint to give direction to OP.1 to 3 to replace new car having no defects along with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for loss of income. According to the Complainant on 08.08.2013 she booked one Indica EV2 LS by paying Rs.5,000/- and after booking she had taken the delivery of the said car from OP.2 on 30.08.2013 by paying an amount of Rs.4,24,611/-. Further she stated that, the vehicle was hypothecated with Karnataka bank, as she had availed loan from the said bank for purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle was registered as KA18 B3948. She specifically alleged that, she has changed nearly 16 tyres to the said vehicle within warranty period and the said vehicle was plied only up to 36000 kms. When she took the said vehicle to OP.1 for service and replacement of the bald tyres on 26.09.2013, 18.11.2013, 21.01.2014, 11.04.2014, 16.05.2014, 19.09.2014, 19.06.2014, 16.05.2014 & 27.11.2014 respectively, spent nearly Rs.2,000/-towards repairs. Out of above dates, only one time OP had replaced the tyre at free of cost. In this regard, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that tyres are not manufactured either by Appellant in A/1055/2017 or in A/1621/2017. The Complainant for the reasons best known to her not made the manufacturers of such tyres as parties to the complaint had some considerable force and to find support learned counsel for Appellant/OPs have shown the receipts for having purchased the tyres by Complainant from various tire dealers. In such circumstances, Commission is of the considered view that matter requires reconsideration, since enquiry did not discloses from expert evidence to hold Appellants liable so as to give direction to OP.1 to 3 to replace the car with new one as prayed by the Complainant. Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow both appeals. Consequently set aside the order dtd.10.03.2017 passed in CC/63/2015 by Chickmagaluru District Forum and remand back the matter for reconsideration as observed in the order affording opportunity to both parties and give opportunity to the Complainant to implead the manufacturers of the tyres as shown in the receipt for having purchased the tyres and to adduce evidence of the expert if required. The Forum below is directed to decide the complaint as early as possible within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
- The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
- Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Judicial Member *NS* | |
