BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 16th day of November, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 13/2017
M/s TATA Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Bombay House,
No.24, Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai – 400 001. ………….. Appellant
Vs.
1. S.Devipriya, W/o P.Suresh,
Mariamman Koil Street,
Vinoba Nagar, Puducherry – 08.
2. M/s Manakular Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.,
Preshitha Complex,
Villianur Main Road,
Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry – 605 110.
3. M/s J.K. Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
No.117, Villupuram Main Road,
Moolakulam, Puducherry – 605 110. ………….. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.5/2013, dt.18.10.2016 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.5/2013
S.Devipriya, W/o P.Suresh,
Mariamman Koil Street,
Vinoba Nagar, Puducherry – 08. ……….. Complainant
Vs
1. M/s TATA Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Bombay House,
No.24, Homi Mody Street,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. M/s Manakular Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.,
Preshitha Complex,
Villianur Main Road,
Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry – 605 110.
3. M/s J.K. Motors,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
No.117, Villupuram Main Road,
Moolakulam, Puducherry – 605 110. ………….. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT/O.P.No.1:
Tvl.U.Mohan Ilayaraja & A.K.Saravanan,
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Respondent/Complainant: Party-in-Person
Respondent/O.P.No.2 - Exparte
Tvl.S.Perumal, J.Sivakumar,
N.Sagundhala & Rajendra Prasad,
Advocates, Puducherry - For respondent/O.P.3
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 18.10.2016 made in C.C.5/2013.
2. The 1st Opposite Party before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the complainant as well as O.P.2 and 3 therein are the respondents.
3. The parties are referred to in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The short gist of the complaint before the District Forum by the complainant is that she has purchased a TATA Xeta Petrol Engine vehicle for personal use on 30.05.2008 from the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,09,000/-. It has had manufacturing defect and hence on several occasion she has entrusted the vehicle to opposite parties 2 and 3 for rectifying the defects. However, the defects were not rectified. Therefore, after issuing notice, she has filed the complaint before District Forum seeking for a new vehicle of same brand and model or in the alternative to refund the cost of vehicle, i.e. Rs.3,09,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 30.05.2008 till payment; a compensation for Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses.
5. Reply version has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties and the main plea that has taken thereon are set out hereunder:
(a) There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as put forth by the complainant,
(b) The complainant has not given the vehicle for free service within the time stipulated and
(c) that the complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly. Thus, the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Before the District Forum, the complainant herself examined as CW1 and filed 23 documents, which were marked as Exs.C1 to C23. Apart from CW1, CW2 – Mr.S.Shanmuganathan, J.E., and CW3 – Kaliaperumal, M.V.Inspector were also examined on the side of complainant. On behalf of the opposite parties, none have been examined. However, only one document has been filed and marked as Ex.R1 series. Through CW2, one document has been marked as Ex.X1 and through CW2, the report has been marked as Ex.X2.
7. The following three points were framed by the District Forum for determination.
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether any negligence or deficiency of service is attributed by the
Opposite Parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. On the first point whether the complainant is a consumer, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant being the purchaser of vehicle from 2nd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party being the authorized service station, she is a consumer. On the second point whether any negligence or deficiency of service is attributed by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the opposite parties are negligent and they shall be attributed for deficiency in service. On the third point, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.3,09,000/-, being the cost of vehicle which the opposite parties 1 and 2 have to pay to the complainant and the complainant has to return the vehicle. The District Forum also held that opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical hardship suffered by the complainant due to negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties. It has also directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
9. As stated already, challenging the said order, the 1st opposite party preferred the present appeal.
10. The main complaint of the complainant is that the vehicle purchased by the complainant, which has been manufactured by the 1st opposite party, has got inherent defects and hence on several occasion, she entrusted the vehicle to the 3rd opposite party for rectifying the defects. However, the defects have not been rectified and that after taking several steps, she has filed the complaint before District Forum.
11. However, it is the case of the 1st opposite party that there was no manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant did not maintain the vehicle properly and that she has not availed the free services that have been given to her.
12. We have considered the several contentions in this regard along with the pleadings of both parties, the documents filed by both and also evidence in this regard.
13. The opposite party No.1 though has stated that there was no manufacturing defect, as alleged by the complainant, we find from the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector one Mr.Kaliaperumal, who has been examined as CW3 that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defect. Though he has been subjected to cross-examination on the side of complainant, nothing fruitful has come out. The 1st opposite party, who has been in a position to examine a witness on its side to show and proof that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, has not chosen to examine any witness for the reasons known to it. Had the 1st opposite party examined some of its representatives or an expert to prove that the vehicle in question was not having manufacturing defect, it would have been fruitful to the 1st opposite party, but, unfortunately, it has not let in any evidence to prove the same.
14. It is also contended on behalf of 1st opposite party that the vehicle in question was not maintained by the complainant properly and hence some defects have crept in. Even for this, in our considered view, the 1st opposite party could have let in evidence. Mere statement in the reply version will not hold good. Though there may be some fault on the part of complainant, which we will deal with later, the 1st opposite party had a chance to establish before the District Forum that the vehicle in question has not been properly maintained by the complainant.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied on the order passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R.P.No.40/2006, dated 04.05.2010. We have gone through the entire judgement and we find that the facts before National Commission is that the decision was that the vehicle which is the subject matter therein was not having any manufacturing defect. The said position has been pointed out by the Hon'ble National Commission in the said matter. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, in our considered view, the said decision may not be much helpful to the complainant.
16. Coming to the case of the complainant, we are able to see that not only the 1st opposite party alone could be blamed for the problem that has crept in the vehicle. As rightly pointed on behalf of the 1st opposite party, the first free service should have been availed between 1,000 and 1,500 KM. However, first free service was availed by the complainant after the vehicle ran for a distance of 4,065 KM. That apart, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 30.05.2008 and the first free service was availed only on 04.04.2009 roughly about ten months after the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant also missed the opportunity of second free service. Further, 3rd and 4th free services have been availed by her within the kilometers prescribed by 1st opposite party. On this count, in our considered view, the complainant has to be blamed. One more aspect that has to be seen is that though the complainant has alleged that the vehicle which she purchased had got inherent manufacturing defects, immediately the vehicle in question has not been returned to the opposite parties and no steps have been taken by her in that regard. Though she has entrusted the vehicle for rectifying the defects may be thinking that the defects will be rectified, the fact that she was using the vehicle for a considerable time, cannot be disputed. In fact, the vehicle ran for more than 30,000 K.M.
17. Thus, taking into consideration the above aspects, we are of the view that the entire amount that was directed to be payable by the opposite parties 1 and 2, being the cost of the vehicle, may not be proper and appropriate and at the same time, as we have discussed earlier, opposite parties 1 and 2 are also to be blamed for the present position.
18. Considering the over all circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to return a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One-Lakh and Fifty-Thousand only) to the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and physical hardship, instead of Rs.50,000/- ordered by the District Forum. We also direct the payment of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five-Thousand only) towards cost which has been ordered by the District Forum to the complainant. After the payment of the said amounts by the opposite parties, the vehicle, in question, has to be returned by the complainant to the opposite parties.
19. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. However, there is no costs.
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
