Karnataka

StateCommission

A/931/2020

Tata Motors Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nagendra Prasad.K.V. - Opp.Party(s)

Benedict Anand

02 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing :04.12.2020

Date of Disposal :02.03.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:02.03.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.931/2020

 

1. M/s Tata Motors Ltd.,
    Office: Fortune Summit Towers,

    2^nd Floor, No.244,

    Hosur Main Road,

    HSR Layout, 6^th Phase,

    Bengaluru – 560102.

    Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
 

2. M/s Prerana Motors (Pvt.) Ltd.,
    Office:Pride Hulkul,

    No.116, Lalbagh Road,

    Bengaluru – 560027.

    Rep.by its Authorised Signatory

    (By Mr Benedict Anand, Advocate)                                            Appellants

 

 

                                                        

-Versus-

 

   Mr Nagendra Prasad K V
   S/o Mr Virupaksha V S

   Aged about 36 years,

   R/at No.8(New No.41),

   Jaladarshini Layout,

   New BEL Road,

   Bengaluru – 560054.
   (In person)                                                                        Respondent   

                                                         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OPs, aggrieved by the Order dated 09.10.2020 passed in Consumer Complaint No.155/2017 on the file of I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore(hereinafter referred to as the District Commission).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for Appellants and Respondent in person.  Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.

3.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part, with cost.  OPs1 & 2 were directed to replace the engine of the vehicle i.e., Manza Aura Q JET Diesel Car  with a new one and repair the same in all respect and make it  road worthy, free of cost within two months and hand over the same to the Complainant.   Failing which, OPs are directed to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.8,56,749/-, less Depreciation, as per the standard prevailing for depreciation as on the Date on which the Complainant left the vehicle with OP2 for repair, along with @ 12% p.a on the said amount, after depreciation.

          Further, OPs directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.

          The OPs directed to comply the above Order, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OPs 1 & 2 are in Appeal, inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that, the District Commission failed to appreciate or consider the fact that the Complainant’s vehicle had met with an accident as early as at 170 Kms (odometer reading) and thereafter again at 933 Kms, the Complainant had sent to the Appellant for accident repairs.  The vehicle had reported to M/s Vijaya Motors at in May 2013 for accident repairs requiring tinkering, painting, extensive damages to under chassis and other parts, which if not attended immediately, would result in frequent repairs and consequential damages.  Moreover, occurrence of the accident not been denied by the Complainant.  Thus, the Impugned Order does not indicate the exact nature of the Manufacturing Defect as alleged by the Complainant. Vague allegation cannot be considered to be manufacturing defects, as envisaged under the Act, requiring replacement of the Engine and the Impugned Order holding that the vehicle had suffered from manufacturing defects is un-justifiable and needs to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.

5.       The Complainant in his complaint averred that the vehicle had given some trouble hardly within six months from the Date of Purchase regarding Air Conditioner and manufacturing defects in the Starter, for which, he left the vehicle with authorised service centre of OP1 at Palakkad.  Again after few months, there was sudden acceleration drop and the Engine started un-bearable noise and was emitting black fumes, for rectifying the same, he left the vehicle with OP2 who took repair charges, as repairworkswere not covered under the Warranty. During November 2015, the vehicle stopped moving and the same informed to OP2, who informed him that there was trouble in the internal sensor. During the test drive also, the said problem arose and the Sensor replaced and OPs collected the amount for the said work.   Again During 2016, the vehicle was taken to OP2, as it started problem in Censor and to repair the same, OP2 took Rs.60,000/- even though the vehicle was under Extended Warranty; OP informed that the Engine has to be replaced; it would cost Rs.1,60,000/- and admitted that there was a problem in the engine.  Hence, he wrote a letter for replacement of the defective vehicle or for refund of the amount, towards compensation.

6.       Per contra, the stand taken by OPs that no Expert Report by a recognized laboratory produced to show that the Car has manufacturing defect.  No documentary evidence in support of allegations of deficiency in service.  The Warranty offered to the vehicle is subject to the Terms and Conditions of the Warranty as contained in the Owner’s Manual.   When there is a allegation of manufacturing defect in the goods, without proper analysis or test of the goods, the same cannot be determined and has to obtain the laboratory report in that respect.  However, the problem faced by the Complainant with regard to vehicle, service done and returned to complainant in an excellent condition. 

7.       It is an admitted fact that the Complainant on 18.08.2012 had purchased TATA Manza Quadrajet Diesel for Rs.8,56,750/- by borrowing loan from SBI Rajajinagar Industrial Branch, Bengaluru;for his personal use from OP2, which was manufactured by OP1 with warranty of 48 months or 1,50,000 Kms, whichever is earlier and the said vehicle was registered with RTO Regn.No.KA-04ML-1705. The Complainant averred that from the day one of the purchase of the vehicle, it started giving trouble on several occasions and for rectification of the same, he left the vehicle to the Service Centre of OP1 and getting it repaired by repair charges to the OPs was of no use and it clearly goes to show that he had purchased vehicle of old model and used the car for after extensive repairs done by OP2.   Further OP2 has admitted that there is problem in the Engine and informed the Complainant to replace the Engine for a negotiated amount of Rs.95,000/-.  The allegations of the Complainant that several requests have been made OPs to replace the Engine of the Car, as it was within the Warranty period.  Further contended that the act of OPs in not attending the work properly and delivering the Car in good working condition to the Complainant, amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs, since he has purchased the Car by paying a sum of Rs.8,56,750/- by borrowing loan from the Bank has suffered mental agony. In the circumstances, Impugned Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper and same doesn’t call for any interference from this Commission. However, in so far as ordering for cost of Rs.50,000/- towards damages, needs to be modified as Rs.1 Lakh, which would meet the ends of justice.   Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of by modifying the Impugned Order in the following terms.

          OPs 1 and 2 are directed to refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.8,56,749/- with interest at 12% p.a to the Complainant from the date on which the complainant left the vehicle with OP2 for 1^st service. Further, OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Damages and Rs.25,000/- towards Litigation expenses to the Complainant within 45 days from the Date of this Order.

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for the needful.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                         Judicial Member                   President

*s