CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2013.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

           : Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

           : Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member                Date of filing: 02/11/2012

CC /196/2012

Janeesh Janardhanan,

S/o. Janardhanan, Thekkethara Veedu,                                                - Complainant

Meleppuram, Olavakkode,

Palakkad – 678 001

(By Adv. Shine Francis)

Vs

1. Radhakrishnan,

    Administrative Manager,

    Hyson Motors Pvt. Ltd.,                                                - Opposite parties

    Puzhakkalpadam, Guruvayoor Road,

    Thrissur – 680 002

    ( By Adv. Joy Kanhirathinchalil)

2. The South Regional Manager,

    TATA MOTORS, 3^rd Floor, Tutus Tower,  

    N.H. Bye Pass Road, Padivattom, Kochin.  

    ( By. Adv. Krishna Menon & Sulfikar Ali)

3. The General Manager,

    TATA MOTORS, Marketing and Customer Support,

    Passenger Car Business Unit, Mumbai – 400 023

   ( By. Adv. Krishna Menon & Sulfikar Ali)

4. Proprietor Unnikrishnan,

    Vijay Motors, 8/153(14), Vadakanthara P.O.,

    Chunnambuthara, Palakkad – 678 012

    (By Adv. K. Venugopal)

O R D E R

BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER

Complaint in brief :-

The complainant has purchased a TATA SUMO GOLD Register No. KL9 AB 9504 from 1^st opposite party.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the manufactures of the said vehicle.  The vehicle is registered as a contract carriage.  From the date of purchase

itself the perfomance of the vehicle was not satisfactory.  The passengers of the vehicle caused uneasiness as the engine is shaking  when it is working.  And the engine oil and power stearing oil is always leaking.  All these facts were informed to the opposite parties.  But no steps were taken to rectify the problems. Several times the vehicle was stopped on the road as defective.  When it was going to sabarimala the vehicle stopped on the midway and the complainant arranged another vehicle for continuing the journey for the pilgrims.  It resulted in the loss of Rs. 6,000/- to the complainant.  After 5 months from the purchase itself the vehicle started rusting.              The complainant purchased the vehicle as 100% financial basis. The monthly installment is Rs. 15,000/-.  This vehicle is the sole mode of income to the complainant and his family.  The complainant demanded several times to replace the vehicle or repair the vehicle as such in the warranty.  But the opposite parties are refused to do so.  Stating all these things the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party sent a reply stating false contentions.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are not having branches in Palakkad district and 4^th opposite party is working as a service centre for them.  The vehicle delivered to the complainant is a defective one.  The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective vehicle and pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as  compensation along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. 

Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following.

In this complaint 1^st opposite party is impleaded under his personnel capacity.   The complainant has not followed the instructions in the user’s manual.  The defects alleged in the complaint are not proved.  The complainant has not informed such complaints to the 1^st opposite party.  When it was informed by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party informed the same to the TATA Motors.  The complainant has not approached the opposite party no.1 to repair the defects.  The complainant wanted to replace the vehicle as such.  Opposite pary no.1 is not responsible for the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. 

Opposite party no.2 and 3 submit that the complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle, after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance.  All vehicles manufactured by opposite parties are marketed only after the prototype of the vehicle are being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India.  All the vehicles manufactured by the opposite parties put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by this quality Assurance Department before being cleared for despatch to the market.

It is submitted that 4^th opposite party is an unnecessary party in this complaint. There is no allegation against the 4^th opposite party in the complaint. 

There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and all opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

Complainant filed affidavit and Ext. A1 to A10 marked.  All opposite parties except opposite party no.2 filed affidavit.  Ext. B1 marked with objection.  One witness is examed as PW1.

Heard both parties.

Issues to be considered are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so what is the relief and cost?

Issues I and II

Complaint is regarding deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The complainant purchased one TATA SUMO GOLD from the 1^st opposite party.  From the very date of purchase itself the performance of the vehicle is not up to the standard.  The passengers of the vehicle felt uneasiness as the engine of the vehicle is always shaking.  Engine oil and power steering oil were always leaking.  Once the earth wire of the vehicle has broken while it was hired a trip to Sabarimala and the complainant substituted another vehicle to continue the journey and it resulted in financial loss of Rs. 6,000/-.  Eventhough the complainant demanded several times to replace the vehicle or repair the vehicle as per warranty, the opposite parties are not given service.  According to the complainant the vehicle delivered to him by the opposite parties is a defective vehicle.  But no steps were taken by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  So the first prayer in the complaint cann’t be considered. 

After 5 months from the date of purchase the entire vehicle started rusting.  Ext. A10 series the photograph with CD shows the rusting in several parts of the vehicle.  At the time of cross examination PW1, the photographer, also deposed that “ A10 series photo  എടുത്തത്‌ ഞാനാണ് തുരുബിച്ചത് ഞാന് നേരിട്ട് കണ്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്v.’’           Wheather the rusting occurred in the vehicle is due to the manufacturing defect is not known.  

1^st opposite party produced Ext. B1 document, the service history of the complainant’s vehicle.  The said document was marked with objection.  No steps were taken to substantiate B1 series document by the opposite parties.  The complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party no.1,2 and 3 stating the defects of the vehicle.  No steps are taken to solve the grievance of the complainant.  Complainant produced Ext. A5 to A9 documents, the bills issued by the 4^th opposite party to the complainant.  There is no specific allegation against the 4^th opposite party in the complaint. 

From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no. 1,2 and 3. 

In the result complaint partly allowed.  Opposite party no.1,2 and 3 are jointly and  severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only)             as compensation along with  Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  4^th opposite party is exonerated from the liabilities.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of March, 2013

      Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

   President

                                                                                            Sd/-

   Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

                                                                                           Member

      Sd/-

                                                                                  Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.

    Member

 A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1 series – Copy of lawyer notice and receipt  sent by the complainant to the                opposite parties dtd. 27/09/2012.

Ext. A2 – Acknowledgement cards orginal  .

Ext. A3 – Reply notice sent by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant dtd. 10/10/2012.

Ext. A4 –  Pass book of the complainant issued by State Bank of India.

Ext. A5 – Bills issued by the 4^th respondent to the complainant dtd. 09/02/2012.

Ext. A6 - Bills issued by the 4^th respondent to the complainant dtd. 30/06/2012.

Ext. A7 - Bills issued by the 4^th respondent to the complainant dtd. 12/07/2012.

Ext. A8 - Bills issued by the 4^th respondent to the complainant dtd. 15/05/2012.

Ext. A9 - Bills issued by the 4^th respondent to the complainant dtd. 26/06/2012.

Ext. A10  series – Photo with CD of the vehicle of the complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext. B1 series – Service History of the complainant’s vehicle.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Subhash.K.V

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.