View 3923 Cases Against Tata Motors
Tata Motors Ltd filed a consumer case on 16 Jan 2020 against pawan Shukla in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/802/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Jan 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.T.C. /802/2015 Dated:
In the matter of:
Pawan Shukla
E-78, Greater Kailash Enclave-I
New Delhi-110048 ………… COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
305 Tower B, Signature Tower,
South City-I, NH-8,
Gurgaon-122001
A-19, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044
……………OPPOSITE PARTY
ARUN KUMAR ARYA-PRESIDENT
ORDER
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo (XL Classic) Diesel Car from the OP-2 on 03/09/2007 of consideration of Rs. 05,95,504/-. It is alleged that since purchased of the car, the complainant under compulsion had to visit the work shop of OP-2 number of times i.e. on 13/03/2008, 17/03/2008, 30/04/2008, 27/05/2008, 18/06/205, 25/07/2008, 23/08/2008, 28/08/2008, 23/09/2008 and 04/11/2008 for one or other problem including Engine Light, AC Cooking insufficient, Engine noise level high, Door rattling/noisy, fuel leakage, clutch hard, brakes vibrate, excessive smoke check engine lights come on and gear lever rattling etc. alleged the inherent defect in the car persisting that the OP-2 also issued also apology letter dated 28/11/2007 to the complainant. Prayer has below has been made:-
Initially, the complaint bearing no. 534/2010 was filed before this Forum which was decide by the predecessor bench on 01/06/2010. The matter went up in the State Commission for a impugning the said judgement and was remanded back vide order dated 16/09/2015 in FA no. 680/2010 setting aside the ex-parte judgement on 01/06/2010 of this Forum.
The Revision Petitions no. 287/2016 & 288/2016 were filed before Hon’ble National Commission which were dismissed on 11/02/2016 and the complainant was directed to deposit the entire amount he received with the District Forum. The complainant brought the requisite cheque and deposited the same in this Forum as evident from the proceedings dated 18/04/2016.
After completion of the pleading parties filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit.
The OP-1, Tata Motors Ltd. filed its written statement/version and denied all allegations. It is stated that the complaint is time barred as the delivery of the vehicle was taken on 03/09/2007 and the complaint was filed in the month of April, 2010 i.e. after more than 3 years. Further, it is stated that the complaint was filed even much after the expiry of manufacturer’s warranty which was for 18 months from the date of sale of the car.
On merit, it is stated that the OP-1 has a repudiated manufacturer and holds reputation in the global market. The complaint is without substance, the warranty expiry on 02/03/2009 and during the said period the complainant brought the vehicle to the authorized work shop for availing free services and carrying out repaired each any to be carried out due extensive and negligence usage of the vehicle. The complainant is enjoy the use of the vehicle and allegation are just baseless and vague.
There is no defect in the vehicle and vehicle was being used and extensively denied any deficiency on the part of OP-1 as well as any defect in vehicle. Prayer to dismissed the complaint has been made.
OP-2 also filed written statement/version and taken the ground of rejection on account of barred by limitation. It is stated that the reported problem in the vehicle were checked few of them were found to be non-existing or imaginary and at all times the vehicle was repaired and remove the compliant to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. The services rendered by the OP-2 were prompt and to the satisfaction of the complainant. There was no inherent defect in the vehicle, the complainant is without any basis and deserves dismissal.
The parties filed their respective evidence by way of evidence.
At the very outset the issue of limitation raised on behalf of OP needs to be addressed before going in to the merit.
The facts on record admittedly shows that the vehicle was purchased on 03/09/2007 and the complainant was filed in April, 2010 i.e. after more than 2 years. There is no application for condonation of delay. This factum is not denied even due to course of argument by the complainant.
On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC – in that case in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
“As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.”
However, it is argued on behalf of the complainant that the problems and defect complained of are of continuing mature and as such the complaint filed was within limitation period. This argument cannot extend the period of limitation in our considered view.
We therefore are of the considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed with no orders as to cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. It would not be appropriate to go into merit of the case since, the complaint is barred by limitation.
A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.
Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in.
File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum on 16/01/2020.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.