BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 49 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 17.04.2014
Date of Decision : 4.11.2016
Sudesh Kumar son of Shri Ram Partap, resident of House No.137, village Bakriawali, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Salasar Automobiles, through its Prop./ Partner, having its branch/ shop at Auto Market, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. MG Motors, 12th K.M. Delhi Road, Hisar, through its Prop./ Partner.
3. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Office at 20th Floor, Tower No.2, One India Bills Centre, 841, Sainapati Bapatmarg, Mumbai- 400013, Tel. (022) 6658600.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant approached the opposite party no.2 being the authorized dealer of Tata Motors for purchase of New Tata Ace Magic but as at that time same was not available with op no.2, so op no.2 registered the order of the complainant vide order no.SO-MG MotH-13014-00161. Thereafter, the delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant at Sirsa, as per invoice dated 17.4.2013 with one year warranty/ upto 36000 Kms. The complainant purchased the said vehicle for a sum of Rs.3,46,000/- from op no.2. He made payment of Rs.1,96,000/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was got financed from IndusInd Bank through ops no.1 & 2. The complainant used the vehicle very smoothly, but he was shocked to find that just after short time of its purchase, there was problem of consumption of excess Mobil in its engine. The vehicle was used by him with all due care and caution and inspite of that he was in mental shock to detect that just at the running of 3700 Kms., the mobil was finished/ consumed by the engine of the vehicle, whereas ops assured that the first service of the vehicle would be conducted at the minimum running of 6000 Kms. Thereafter, the complainant as per directions of op no.2, approached their branch office/ agency at Sirsa i.e. op no.1 on 22.7.2013 with the said problem which was noted by op no.1 vide their code SH-Int-1-8Y-3416N and op no.1 instead of noting down the actual reading of the Kms as 3700 as shown in the display of screen, out of their malafide intention shown the running of Kms as 4972 and against the service of the vehicle, the ops charged more amount as labour charges despite the fact that vehicle was within guarantee/warranty period. The op no.1 also did not supply the copy of the job card to the complainant despite demand. Then complainant was shocked to detect that the mobil of the vehicle was finished upto the running of 6215 Kms. only instead of its running at 15000 Kms. as assured by ops. The complainant again took the vehicle to op no.1 as per directions of ops but op no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply rather done the service on 6.8.2013. At that time also, job card was prepared but copy of the same was not supplied to the complainant, rather op no.1 charged the labour as well as price of other thing from the complainant. However, inspite of second service, the said defect of consuming excess Mobil was intact. Thereafter, complainant got the third service at just running of total 6340 Kms because vehicle consumed the total Mobil as was changed in the second service. The third service was conducted on 14.10.2013 and on persisting demand of complainant, the ops supplied the copy of the job card, but intentionally and out of their cleverness, ops did not show the labour charges while the fact remains that they have charged an amount of Rs.350/- as labour charges whereas according to the terms and guidelines of the company, they cannot charge the labour charges more than Rs.50/-. Then on the mere running of 8372 Kms, the mobil was consumed on account of defect in the engine and therefore, fourth service was conducted on 11.12.2013 and ops charged a sum of Rs.337.08/- as labour charges and Rs.477/- as parts charges. The said defect is in existence despite fifth service at which time the ops charged an amount of Rs.1314/- from the complainant. Even the colour of the vehicle is not original because from some parts, the colour is faded/ removed. The ops have supplied a second hand vehicle to the complainant and have cheated the complainant and have caused harassment and mental agony. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle with one or to refund the price of the vehicle alongwith interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing written statement. It is submitted that the warranty on the vehicle is given by the manufacturing company as per norms of the company. No alleged defect in the vehicle was ever reported by complainant to the answering op. On 22.7.2013, complainant visited the answering op and availed one paid service, but did not report any alleged defect. However, except usual mobil oil and filter charges, nothing more was charged from complainant. As a matter of fact, on 6.8.2013, one camp was organized by the company for checking/ services of the vehicle manufactured by it. The complainant had brought his vehicle in this camp, but he did not report any defect and no repair was done in the vehicle and even no defect was found in the vehicle. This camp was a free of cost camp. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied.
3. Initially, op no.2 appeared but when the case was fixed for filing written statement, none on its behalf appeared and was proceeded against exparte.
4. OP no.3 in its written statement has averred that complainant purchased the vehicle from op no.2 at Hisar and therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, whereas the vehicle has already covered 16404 Kms as on 4.7.2014 i.e. within a mere span of 15 months. It is submitted that complainant brought the vehicle at the workshop of op no.1 at 6215 Kms. on 6.8.2013 for general check up and not for any problem of excess consumption of engine oil. It is denied that the second service was carried out at 6215 kms. As per records maintained by the answering op, the complainant brought the vehicle in question on 14.10.2013 at 6340 kms for changing engine oil which including oil filter are chargeable under the warranty. Then complainant brought the vehicle at 8372 kms. on 11.12.2013 for hub greasing. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
5. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/L, photographs Ex.CW1/M to Ex.CW1/P, affidavit of Kamal Mechanic Ex.CW1/R. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copies of service history Ex.R2 & Ex.R3, terms and conditions of warranty Ex.R4. OP no.3 tendered affidavit Ex.R5.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for ops No.1 & 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The first grievance of the complainant is with regard to the excess consumption of the engine oil. He has alleged that he has reported the said defect of consuming excess oil by the engine to the ops several times but despite repairs, said defect cannot be removed. The opposite parties have simply denied the said defect in the vehicle but have not proved the said fact through any expert opinion. The ops could have examined the vehicle in question through their expert engineer and could have placed on file a report in this regard but they have failed to do so. From the job sheets dated 22.7.2013, it is evident that engine oil was replaced on that date after purchase of vehicle on 17.4.2013 and then on 14.10.2013 and on 15.3.2014 the complainant made such complaints of consumption of engine oil in excess as is evident from the job sheet Ex.CW1/K and Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. The complainant has also placed on file report of Kamal Mechanic as Ex.CW1/R according to which the consumption of mobil in the engine of the vehicle of the complainant is in excess and same is due to manufacturing defect in the engine. The opposite parties have not rebutted the said report of the Mechanic. So, it can be said that there is defect in the engine of the vehicle in question. In this regard we are also fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Krishanpal Singh vs. Tata Motors Limited & others, 2014 (3) CPR 110 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant. However, at the same time the replacement of the whole vehicle demanded by the complainant is not justified and the opposite parties are liable to replace the engine of the vehicle in question and other defective parts, if any as per clause 2 of terms and conditions of the warranty.
8. The another grievance of the complainant is that colour of the vehicle is not original and the ops have supplied a second hand vehicle to the complainant. In this regard, he has placed on file report of Mechanic of Azad Paints and Motor Garage Ex.CW1/B according to which the rear window of the vehicle is again painted. The complainant has also placed on file photographs of rear window of the vehicle as Ex.CW1/M to Ex.CW1/P which go to show that some paint is faded from the rear window but it cannot be said that opposite parties have supplied a second hand vehicle to the complainant because paint is removed/faded if some vehicle/ thing is struck against the vehicle. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion in this regard that vehicle is second hand.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the engine of the vehicle in question free of costs and to make the vehicle defect free and also to replace other defective parts, if any without charging any amount from the complainant. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:4.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
