Complaint filed on:21-04-2023

                                                      Disposed on:12-03-2024

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF MARCH, 2024

//:PRESENT://

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 52/2023 

Sri. S.Siddeshgowda

S/o Late Sannasiddegowda,

Aged about 75 years,

#732, Prabhava, 9^th Cross,

SIT-Extension,

Tumkur – 572 103

9845412991

……….Complainant

(By Sri. Himanand D.C., Advocate)

V/s

1.       Proprietor,

          M/S Sree Auto Motors,

          No.1, BH Road,

          Near Gubbi Gate,

          Tumkur – 572 107.

2.       Regional Manager,

          Tata Motors Ltd.,

          Regional Office,

          #24, UB City Building,

          14^th Floor, Canberra Block,

          Vittal Malya Road,

          Bangalore – 560 001.

3.       General Manager,

          Tata Motors Ltd.,

          4^th Floor, Ahura Centre,

          82 Mahakali Caves Road,

          MIDC, Andheri East,

          Mumbai – 400 093.

………..Opposite Party/s

(OP1 – By Sri. N.Ramanjana Reddy, Adv)

(OP2 & 3 – By Sri. V. Jagadish Kumar, Adv)

//:O R D E R://

BY SRI. KUMARA .N - MEMBER

This complaint filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.9,74,900.00 plus Rs.34,872-00, which was collected by the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 from complainant towards purchase of  New car and insurance for the car respectively and further prays to award Rs.50,000-00, Rs50,000-00, Rs.38,90,000-00 and Rs.45,00,000-00 towards travelling in Taxi, transacting with the Respondents, damages for deficiency of service and for mental agony caused to the complainant respectively.   

2.       In this case, The Opposite Party No.1 is the Proprietor, Sree Auto Motors, No.1, BH Road, Near Gubbi Gate, Tumkur – 572 107, the Opposite Party No.2 is the Regional Manager, Tata Motors Ltd., Regional Office, #24, UB City Building, 14^th Floor, Canberra Block, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore – 560 001 and Opposite Party No.3 is the General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd, 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East Mumbai – 400 093 (Hereinafter called as “OPs”.)

3.       Its the case of the complainant, that the complainant , on 30.06.2022 paid Rs.9,74,900-00 and Rs.34,872-00 towards purchase of new Tata Altroz car and insurance premium of the car respectively to the OPs and accordingly the OPs delivered the said car to the complainant on 22.07.2022.  The complainant further submitted that on 15.08.2022 the complainant first encountered a major issue and car stopped at multiple places while travelling to the Hubli, Karnataka and on 16.08.2022, the complainant reports the matter to the Tata dealer in Hubli.  Accordingly, the said dealer updated the software, but unfortunately in the same trip i.e. while coming back from the Hubli to Tumkur, similar problem noticed.  The complainant further submitted that the said car is having problem of unable to switch off tail lamp, bump at the rear seat floor, etc.  The complainant further submitted that during long journey in the month of September, October of 2022 same issues were arised.  The complainant fed up with the bad road performance of the said car and submitted that the Respondents were sold the defective vehicle to the complainant and this is a clear negligence on the part of Respondents and is also a clear case of deficiency in service.  The bad performance of the said vehicle caused mental agony to the complainant and in spite of several requests and approaches the said vehicle not updated property.  Hence, this complaint.    

4.       After the complaint registered, notices were served to the OPs 1 to 3 and then the OP No.1 and OP Nos. 2 & 3 appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate versions.

4(a).  The OP No.1 appeared and filed the version admitting the fact that the complainant purchased the new car from the OPs and contended that the complainant on 11.08.2022 send the above said car for 1^st   free service with no complaints and also on 15.08.2022, no complaint was registered in Hublli show room and no repair was done.  It is further contended that on 16.08.2022, the complainant came to show room with some minor defects in the car and in turn the OP No.1 thoroughly investigated the vehicle and found there was no defects in the car as such on same day within one hour the complainant take back the vehicle.   

          The OP No.1 further contended that as per the advice of complainant on 30.12.2022, driver of OP No.1 pick up the complainant’s vehicle from his house to the show room and in the 2^nd service there were no complaints in the said vehicle, while driving and after the completion of the service, in spite of several requests and approaches, the complainant failed to take back the vehicle. The complainant son sent an email from abroad on 19.01.2023 to the Sri Subhodh dixit the service manager of Tata motors (OPs) with requesting to tack back the vehicle after joint drive.  But on 21.01.2023, the complainant son send a email that he is not interested to take back the vehicle and he demanded to replace the vehicle and on 03.02.2023 Sri subhod dixit send a email and suitably replied.  The OPs further contended that in spite of requests through e email to the complainant’s son to take back the vehicle, the complainant failed to take back the vehicle.  The complainant also failed to come to joint drive in spite of requests.  It is further contended that as per the company norms and conditions, any defect arise in the vehicle, within 2 years, the company will rectified the same without any cost and there is no replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost of the vehicle.  The experts of TATA Motors checked the vehicle completely, there was no defect found in the car.  Hence, there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  On these among other grounds, the OP No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

4(b)   The OP Nos. 2 & 3 in their objection denied all the averments made by the complainant in the complaint and admitted the fact that the OPs delivered the car on 22.07.2022.  The OP Nos. 2 & 3 contended that the OPs being a reputed car manufacturer, after the car manufacture, tested the cars at different stages and Automotive Research Association of India has approved the test method.  After the testing of the vehicle, then only the vehicle will be delivered to the Customers.  Accordingly, in this case after the test, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the said vehicle was delivered and performing well.   The complainant never raised the major issues during and when issues raised by the complainant, same was updated and handed over to the complainant.  The complainant made the allegations that the OPs have delivered the defective car.  After that, the complainant not produced any expert opinion.  The complainant with bad intention lodged this complaint to gain unlawfully.  Hence, the OPs 2 & 3 prays to dismiss the complaint.

5.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P11.  Sri.Padmanabhaiah K.V., General Manager of OP No.1 filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  The OP No.1 marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R16. Mr.Arun K. S/o Mr.Umashankar K.N., Customer Care Manager of OP Nos. 2 & 3 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit.  The OP Nos.2 & 3 marked the documents at Ex.R.1 R10.  

6.       We have heard the arguments of complainant’s and OPs’ counsel.  Counsel for OP Nos. 2 & 3 also files written arguments.    

7.       The points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

8.        Our findings aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: As per the final order.

//:REASONS://

Point Nos. (1) and (2):-

9.       The counsel for complainant argued that the car supplied by the OPs is defective in nature and it is not performing well.  The complainant faced issues during travel with the vehicle at many times in many places.  When the issues in the vehicle reported to the OPs, the OPs unnecessarily stating that there is no problem in the vehicle, but the vehicle performance on the road is not good.  Hence, the complainant prays to allow the complaint. The complainant produced some documents i.e. Ex P1/copy of the Driving licence, Ex P2/Copy of the Vehicle registration (RC Book), Ex P3/copy of the battery purchased, Ex P4/copy of the tax invoice, Ex P5/copy of the insurance, Ex P6/copy of Email correspondences, Ex.P7/copy of SPA, Ex.P8 to P10/copy of photos of car and Ex.P11/C.D.   

10.     On the other hand, the OP No.1 produced documents at Ex.R1 to R16, which are Ex.R1is the copy of GPA, Ex.R2 to R16 are copy of e’ mails dated:28.03.2023, 10.03.2023, 07.03.2023, 24.02.2023, 22.02.2023, 11.02.2023, 03.02.2023, 23.01.2023, 19.01.2023, 13.01.2023, 11.01.2023, 07.01.2023, 30.12.2022, 23.11.2022, 21.10.2022, Ex.R17/copy of warranty terms and conditions.   The OP Nos. 2 & 3 also produced some documents.

11.     The counsel for OPs argued that the OPs is a reputed car manufacturer in the Country, after the manufacturing, conducting multiple tests and then only the vehicle will be delivered to the customers. The complainant when raises issue in the vehicle the same was rectified but the complainant never raises any major issues.  Regarding the allegation that the OPs have supplied defective car, the complainant has not produced any expert opinion.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

12.     It’s clear from the above discussions, that the complainant purchased new Tata Altroz car from the OPs on 30.06.2022 and paid Rs.9,74,900-00 and Rs.34,872-00 towards purchase of new Tata Altroz car and insurance premium of the car respectively to the OPs and the OPs delivered the said car to the complainant on 22.07.2022. The complainant allegation that the OPs delivered defective car to the complainant and in the said car multiple times noticed problems frequently while travelling and its performance on road is poor, to prove this complainant not produced any expert opinion and the complainant not produced any details regarding the multiple problem noticed. The complainant also not produced any believable evidences and copy of the job card issued by the OPs.  The OPs strongly contended that there is no major problems noticed in the car, small issues arised, which were rectified immediately and the said car is in the good condition.  This Commission directed the complainant to go for long test drive along with the OPs, but the complainant denied and not shown any interest to test drive and failed to comply the directions of this Commission.  In the above discussion, this Commission relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments, in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and Anr., (IT 2006(4) SC 113 and come to the conclusion that the complainant not proved any deficiency on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, we pass the following:- 

 //:ORDER://

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties.