Karnataka

Kolar

CC/10/2022

Shivanna A.G - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prerana Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.Sadasivachari

27 May 2022

ORDER

                          Date of Filing: 08.02.2022

Date of Disposal: 27.05.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2022

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 10 OF 2022

Shivanna A.G,

S/o. Late Gopala Gowda,

Aged About 63 years,

Abbani Village, Harati Post,

Kolar Taluk.                                                                 ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. B.Sadasivachari, Advocate)

- V/s –

1) Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Industrial Area, Tamaka, Kolar.

(Exparte)

 

2) M/s. Bosch Limited,

Sl. No.28277653, Installed by

M/s. Tata Motors Limited,

Fortune Summit Towers,

2^nd Floor, #244, Hosur main Road,

Bangalore-560068.

(Exparte)                                                                   …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.  The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the OPs to repair the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-07 – A-9031 Xenon Yodha BS-IV or to replace the vehicle and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 2% per month till its realization by allowing the complaint.

02.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is an agriculturist and for his agricultural operation purchased the Tata Xenon Yodha (Pick-up/compact-BS-III/BS-IV) for the purpose of transportation of agricultural operations on 05.05.2018.  It is stated that, OP No.1 deducted the insurance amounts and the complainant also paid along the EMIs against the purchase of the above said vehicle since 07.12.2018 to 19.03.2020 and in total complainant paid Rs.1,88,710/-. 

02(a). Further complainant states that, the above said vehicle was in the good condition till 1^st service for the period of 12 months.  After running about 23,000 kilometers due to manufacturing defect engine not worked properly.  Thereafter complainant informed to OP No.1 about the condition of the vehicle but the OP No.1 failed to provide good service for the vehicle nor repair the vehicle at the request of the complainant.  The complainant alleges that, OP No.1 informed him to bring the vehicle to the service station, but the engine of the vehicle is seized and it cannot move on the road and hence he could not go to the service station.  The complainant also requested to service technicians to visit and verify the vehicle near the house of the complainant, but the technician neglected.  Further alleged that, OP No.1 failed to provide remedy to the complainant.  Hence alleged that, OP No.1 is deficient in its service.  That the complainant also suffered agricultural loss as well as due to pandemic he is unable to pay EMI to the Tata Motors Finance Limited.  It is also alleged that OP No.1 is liable to pay insurance to the vehicle during the loan period or till discharge of the loan.  The vehicle becomes defective during the period when insurance was in force i.e., 20.05.2019.  Ultimately complainant alleges that, due to negligence act and deficiency in service of OP Nos.1 & 2 he suffered mental agony and monitory loss.  Hence this complaint.

03.   On issuance of notice OP No.2 remained absent and thereon OP No.2 placed exparte.  Further counsel for complainant filed affidavit along with track report of the postal department in respect of notice sent to OP No.1 along with affidavit.  In the affidavit it is deposed that, postal article is delivered to OP No.1 and on perusing the track report, it is sufficient to hold service of notice and hence OP No.1 also placed exparte.

04.   In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed affidavit evidence along with the copies of the documents.

05.   Heard the counsel for the complainant. 

06.   On the basis of the pleadings the following points will arise for our consideration:-

(1) Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 as alleged in the complaint ?

 (2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint.

 (3)   What order?

07.   Our findings on the above points are:-

        POINT (1):-      Partly in the Affirmative

        POINT (2):       Partly in the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

08.   POINT (1):-      We have perused the pleadings along with documents and the affidavit evidence produced by the complainant and heard arguments of the complainant.

09.   The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the Tata Xenon Yodha (Pick-up/compact-BS-III/BS-IV) for the purpose of transportation of agricultural operations on 05.05.2018. on perusal of the Annexure-C1 is the delivery note, Annexure-C2 (11 moths receipts) and these documents discloses that, the complainant by obtaining loan from the OP No.2 had purchased the above said vehicle and totally he paid Rs.1,88,710/-.  It is alleged that, up to first service the above said vehicle is good worthy for road condition and thereafter after running about 23,000 kilometers due to manufacturing defect engine not worked properly.  Thereafter complainant informed to OP No.1 about the condition of the vehicle, but the OP No.1 has failed to provide good service for the vehicle nor repaired the vehicle at the request of the complainant.  The complainant alleges that, OP No.1 informed him to bring the vehicle to the service station, but the engine of the vehicle was seized and it cannot move on the road and hence he could not go to the service station.  The complainant also requested to service technicians to visit and verify the vehicle near the house of the complainant, but the technicians neglected.  Further alleged that, OP No.1 has failed to provide remedy to the complainant.

10.   Further to substantiate the case of the complainant the complainant produced the Warranty issued for the vehicle in question. On perusal of the warranty given for TATA XENON YODHA at page No.124 of the warranty terms and conditions it reads thus,

“we warrant the TATA Xenon compact and parts thereof manufactured vehicle by us to be free from defect in material and workmanship, subjected to the following terms and condition.

1. This warranty terms and conditions shall be valid for 36 months from the date of sale of the vehicle terms and conditions by our works or regional officers or our sale establishments or our authorized dealers or 3,00,000/- km, whichever is earlier”.

11.   On the basis of the evidence placed on record the alleged vehicle was purchased on 21-05-2018 and runs up to 23,000 kms only and the said vehicle due to manufacturing defect engine not worked properly.  Whereas the above said vehicle runs up to 23,000 kms only the said vehicle engine is not working. The Op No.1 acted contrary to the warranty issued to the vehicle. Further is the duty of the Op No.1 to repair the said vehicle to the road worthy condition. However in the affidavit evidence, the complainant has clearly stated that, despite many requests Ops did not turned to repair the said vehicle. Under the circumstances, we have no other option to accept the evidence of the complainant.  Further non -providing of good service to the complainant who being the agriculturist and paid his hard earned money to purchase the said vehicle and the act of the OP No.1 is deplorable one and it certainly amounts to deficiency in service. However, Op No.2 who advanced the loan amount to the complainant and the complainant did not produce any cogent evidence to prove that, Op No.2 is also deficient in its service. Hence the complaint against the Op No.2 is hereby dismissed and complainant has proved deficiency of the service on the part of OP No.1 only.  Accordingly we hold Point No.1 is Partly Affirmative.

12.     POINT (2):- On the basis of the evidence placed on record that, the complainant was duly purchased the TATA xenon Youdh vehicle on 21-05-2018 and the warranty was given by the OP No.1 for the said vehicle for 36 months or up to 3,00,000/-kms. Whereas the said vehicle engine was seized due to defect and the complainant intimated the same, but the Op No.1 being the service provider ought to have inspected the vehicle and repaired it to the road worthy condition as per the warranty given. However the Op No.1 failed to provide good service to its customer and not repaired the said vehicle to the road worthy condition. Hence Op No 1 is liable to repair the said vehicle to the road worthy condition. That the complainant has failed to produce the cogent evidence regarding monetary loss to award compensation.  Hence we deem it proper to answer Point No.2 is Partly Affirmative.

13.   POINT (3):-      In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is hereby allowed-in–part as against OP No.1 and Dismissed as against OP No.2.

 

02.   The OP No.1- Prerana Motors Pvt. Ltd. is directed to repair the complainant’s vehicle Xenon Yodha BS-IV bearing registration No. KA-07 A-9031 to its road worthy condition free of cost within 45 days from the date of the order.

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 27^th DAY OF MAY 2022)

 

 

        LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT