F.A.No. 973  OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.565 OF 2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD

Between

Tata Motors Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director
Marketing & Customer Support
Passenger Car Business Unit
8^th Floor, Centre-1,World Trade Center
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-005

Appellant/opposite party No.1

        A N D

1.   P.Satyanarayana S/o Lakshmi Narasaiah
aged about 55 years, R/o H.No.3-150/2/1
Sriram Nagar, Yadagiri Gutta Village
and Mandal, Dist. Nalgonda-115

Respondent/complainant

2.   The Manager
Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.,
Show Room at Ground Floor
Golden Edifice, Khaiarthabad Circle
Hyderabad-4

3.   Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.,
Uppal Service Centre, rep. by its Manager
3-36, Behind Canara Bank, Warangal Road
Uppal, Hyderabad-39

4.   M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd.,
rep. by its Managing Director
Room No.301 & 302, III Floor
Mandhana Towers, H.No.7-1-59/2 & 59/6
Ameerpet, Hyderabad-016
                                        Respondents/opposite parties no.2&3

Counsel for the Appellant              M/s MVR Suresh & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent           Party in person (R1)
                                                Held sufficient(R2)
                                                M/s J.Prabhakar (R3)
                                                Served (R4)

 QUORUM:      

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                        &

                             SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                              MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

       Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
           ***

1.             The first opposite party is the appellant. 

2.             The complainant filed the appeal seeking for rectification of coolant water and engine oil leakage and extension of warranty period or in the alternative for replacement of the vehicle and its engine or for refund of the amount of `4,72,208/- with interest and `3,11,100/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.

2.             The complainant purchased TATA Indica diesel version mini car bearing registration No.AP24 AN 8803 from the second opposite party on 3.3.2008 for consideration of `4,72,208/- which included road tax and insurance premium of `12,898/-.  The complainant paid a sum of `1,12,000/- on 3.3.2008 and made arrangement for balance amount on finance, `3,46,000/- from the opposite party no.4.

3.             The vehicle posed problem of getting breakdown as the coolant water and engine oil begun to leak.  The complainant lodged complaint with the opposite party no.2.  The opposite party no.3 repaired the vehicle and thereafter the vehicle posed troubles and repairs due to mechanical problems.  The opposite party no.3 replaced several parts of the engine and on 26.06.2009 returned the vehicle to the complainant.  The vehicle was again taken on 26.8.2009, 5.9.2009 and 14.9.2009 for rectification of defects of the engine .  The problems were not rectified.  A team of experts from the opposite parties no.2 and 3 examined the vehicle and opined that the vehicle posed mechanical problems and as such they extended the warranty period on 25.6.2009 for a period fo one year and thereafter again on 5.9.2009, 26.8.2009 and on 14.9.2009.  The complainant could not use the vehicle due coolant leakage and leakage of engine oil and the complainant used service of Sri Krishna Tours and Travels for his requirement. 

4.             The mechanical engineer K.Srinivas examined the vehicle  and issued advice letter on 10.3.2010 stating that there was coolant water leakage and engine oil leakage and if the vehicle is continued to run, the engine will breakdown. 

5.             The first opposite party resisted the claim contending that the vehicle was manufactured at the plant and it was thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality check and test drive before passing through factory.  The complainant has not produced evidence that the car was used for his livelihood.  The complainant is not a consumer.  The car was reported to the service center on 15 occasions out of which the car was attended for accident related repairs on 5 occasions.  The warranty period was extended on 25.6.2009 and thereafter the car was not reported for the complaint of coolant water and engine oil leakage.  The complainant without taking the car to the opposite parties no.2 and 3, got tested by K.Srinivas  and he had not produced the report of the automobile engineer.  The warranty is available for 18 months and limited to repair or replacement of parts which are defective.  Reckless driving of the complainant would have contributed to the problem in the car.  Under warranty clause the complainant is debarred from making any demand or damages or compensation. 

6.             The opposite parties no.2 and 3 contended that they had taken utmost car to rectify the problems in the car.  Coolant water and engine oil leakage was reported on one occasion.  The vehicle was brought on various occasions  for the other problems.  The credibility of K.Srinivas  is not known to the opposite parties no.2 and 3.  The complainant had not got sent the car to an appropriate laboratory to show that the vehicle suffered manufacturing defect.  The vehicle was handed over on various dates on account of sustained accidents and not on account of coolant water and engine oil leakage.  As a good will gesture the opposite parties no.2 and 3 extended the warranty for further 25000 kms or one year whichever is earlier.  The has been vehicle plying on the roads for more than 2 ½ years.

7.            The fourth opposite party resisted the claim and contending that it had provided finance to the complainant  to purchase the vehicle from the opposite party no1 & 2.  The fourth opposite party is entitled to the loan amount with interest from the complainant and it cannot be held responsible for any defect or damage of the vehicle.  The complainant is bound to pay equated monthly instalments. 

8.             The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked the documents Exs.A1 to A33.  The Assistant General Manager of the first opposite party Bipin Palekar filed his affidavit while the General Manager of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed his affidavit and the Legal Executive of the opposite party no.4 VDV Prasad, filed his affidavit.  Exs.B1 and B2 are marked.

9.             The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise the vehicle posed problems by breaking down on the way even after it was repaired by the opposite parties no.2 and 3.

10.            Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the first opposite party filed the appeal contending that the District Forum failed to see that the complainant was at fault as there was no complaint of engine and coolant oil leakage in the car on not more than an occasion and that the second and third opposite parties extended warranty only as gesture of goodwill and that the vehicle met with accident for about five times.  The car ran for 29,608 kms for a period 2 ½ years. 

11.            The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from any misapreciation of fact or law?

12.            It is not disputed that the complainant purchased TATA Indica Diesel version from the first opposite party on finance from the fourth opposite party on 3.3.2008.  There is no dispute that the vehicle posed certain problems and the job cards would show the repairs carried out on different occasions. 

13.            The details of the works carried out consequent to the accidents are as follows:

14.            As contended by the learned counsel for opposite party no.1, the vehicle met with an accident for more than five times and the complainant had made the repairs required on account of the vehicle meeting with an accident, as the repair that was required on account of the other problems posed by the vehicle.  The extension of warranty for a further period of 25000 or one year whichever is earlier by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 was stated to be as a goodwill gesture.  Taking clue from the extension of the warranty, the complainant claims for further extension of warranty and rectification of defects which were already rectified by the opposite parties no.2 and 3.  By stretch of imagination can it be said that the repairs required on the occasion of the vehicle meeting with an accident can be made the basis for claiming extension of warranty. 

15.            A perusal of terms of warranty clause would show that from the time the vehicle meets an accident, the responsibility of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 to repair the vehicle or replace the part free of cost in terms of warranty would come to an end.  According to the  warranty clause in the manual, the warranty on each Tata Indica car is 18 months from the date of sale of the car and for cars which are used for commercial purposes, the same is restricted to 18 months or 1500 kms whichever is earlier.          

15.            Insofar as the problem in regard to the coolant water and engine oil leakage of the vehicle are concerned, there has been a certificate in the form of Ex.A15 placed on record by the automobile engineer K.Srinivas which the opposite parties no.1 to 3 challenge on the premise that the automobile engineer was not competent and he inspected the vehicle without issuing any notice to them.  It is true the complainant had not taken the vehicle to the opposite parties no.2 and 3 despite request made therefor by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 who in fact addressed letters to the complainant requesting him to take the vehicle to them in order to enable them tot attend the repairs.

16.            The complainant for the reasons best known to him had taken the vehicle to the automobile engineer and he had not informed the opposite parties no.2 and 3 about the inspection of the vehicle made by the automobile engineer.  The plea of the opposite parties no.1 to 3 that the automobile engineer who inspected the vehicle was not competent to issue the certificate, is not supported by any evidence.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that K.Srinivas had not at all inspected the vehicle.  In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the only mechanical problems posed by the vehicle are in regard to the engine oil leakage and there has been no any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The warranty period extended by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 has been expired.  Once the warranty was expired the complainant cannot claim any repair or replacement of parts free of cost and as a matter of right in terms of warranty.  In any case it cannot be said that the vehicle suffered any manufacturing defect or the opposite parties are liable to extend warranty period.  As such the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

17.            In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                           DT.17.09.2012

KMK*

                                        OK