STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 413 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 12.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 20.02.2013 |
M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
Versus
1.Sh. Sameer Vasudeva, Partner, M/s Satyam Enterprises, SCF No.13, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
….Respondent/Complainant
2.M/s Tata Motors through its Authorised Dealer, M/s Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.
....Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.1
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondent No.2.
First Appeal No. | : | 416 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 17.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 20.02.2013 |
Tata Motors Limited through its Senior Manager Legal i.e. Mr. M. K. Bipin Dass, Commercial Division, 5, Jeewan Tara Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and mentioned in the complaint head note as Tata Motors through its Authorised Dealer, M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
Versus
1.Sh. Sameer Vasudeva, Partner, M/s Satyam Enterprises, SCF No.13, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
….Respondent/Complainant.
2.M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot NO.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
….Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.413 and 416 both of 2012, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, against the common order dated 06.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the complaint bearing No.361 of 2011, filed by respondent No.1 (complainant), qua the appellants/Opposite Parties and directed them as under: -
“12] In view of the foregoing discussion & findings, we opined that the engine of the vehicle in question is suffering from serious/inherent defect, as a result the engine was giving rattling noise. Consequently, the complainant had to undergo a lot of physical harassment, mental tension as well as forced to enter into unnecessary litigation on this account. Thus, the deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, is writ large. We therefore allow this complaint. The OPs are jointly & severally, directed as under:-
i) To replace the entire engine of the vehicle in question with brand new engine having prescribed/due warranty, free of cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the vehicle from the complainant. The complainant shall take the car in question to the workshop of OP No.1 within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
ii) To pay a sum of Rs.22472/- to the complainant, which he had been paid to PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for getting the vehicle inspected, as per their demand made vide letter dated 30.3.3012 (Marked as Y).
iii) To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to jointly & severally pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.06.2011 till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
iii) In case the OPs failed to comply with the order as at Para No.12(i), then they would be liable to refund the cost of the car at which rate it was sold to the complainant.”
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 29.11.2010, the complainant purchased Tata Safari EX Car from Opposite Party No.2, for Rs.8,84,223/- vide Sale Certificate (Annexure C-1), after getting it financed from Tata Motors. It was stated that on 29.11.2010 itself, the Air Conditioning switch of the car was faulty and had to be replaced on the same very day. It was further stated that the digital watch of the car was faulty and had to be replaced/repaired within the 1st week of purchase of the car. It was further stated that there was tinkering noise in the engine compartment of the car and it was rectified by the Engineers after about 3-4 visits to the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the nuts of the mounting were illfitted and the same had to be replaced within 1st month of the purchase of the car. It was further stated that during the month of December, 2010, the air started leaking from the front windscreen and the same was rectified by putting fresh sealant in the gap by the Engineers of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the said car developed serious rattling noise problem from the engine compartment within the first week and the same was taken to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs but after more than 20-25 visits, nothing was done in the matter. It was further stated that the complainant got the car repaired at 122 Kms., 1680 Kms., 6817 kms. and 7659 kms. vide job cards (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the car was giving rattling noise problem from the engine, which the Opposite Parties failed to rectify. It was further stated that the said car was defective and the complainant had to suffer a lot of harassment, and even paid Rs.7,000/- on 29.11.2010 for getting the extended warranty. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sold a defective car, and also failed to replace the same, with new car, despite repeated requests and visits made by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant served a legal notice dated 17.5.2011 (Annexure C-4), but to no effect. It was further stated that the act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Parties, to either repair the vehicle, in question or refund Rs.9,20,723/- on account of price of the car, road tax for registration, insurance and extended warranty, alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation, was filed.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the complainant made misconceived and baseless allegations of defects in the vehicle with regard to engine noise, replacement of nuts, A.C. Switch etc. of the vehicle, poor pick up, without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory. It was further stated that the vehicle was extensively used by the complainant for commercial activities and the same was not suffering from any manufacturing defect. It was further stated that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was of the highest quality and he took the delivery of car after being satisfied with its condition and performance. It was further stated that there were minor problems in the car, which were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, by Opposite Party No.2, as is evident from the job cards. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, was maintaining the records of all the visits of the customers. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, took up almost the same stand as was taken by Opposite Party No.1 in its reply. It was stated that all job cards i.e. Exhibits R-1 to R-7 falsified the assertions, made by the complainant. It was further stated that the vehicle was a perfect merchantable automobile and was free from any defect. It was further stated that the vehicle was not suffering from any defect, and the same was running perfectly, and therefore, there was no question of replacing the same with a new one. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as sated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants/Opposite Parties, have filed the instant appeals.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for appellant/Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, because whenever the complainant came with the problems, the same were immediately attended to Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that the District Forum, by placing reliance on the report of the expert, allowed the complaint, by ignoring the objections, filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, to the same (expert report), by way of affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, a trained diagnostic expert. He further submitted that the expert report, furnished by the Engineers of the PEC, was a mere statement, which was given without comparing the noise level of the vehicle, in question, with some other vehicle of the same segment. He further submitted that the Members of the Committee, furnished the report without specifying the scientific parameters used while examining the vehicle.
10. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that it was a bald allegation of the complainant, that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect, as he did not produce any expert opinion, regarding the same. He further submitted that the complainant used the vehicle extensively for business purposes, and was negligent in maintaining the same. He further submitted that the report submitted by the experts, was not proper and trustworthy, as the panel of experts did not give any reason, for the noise, between the speed of 40 km/hr to 80 km/hr, and therefore, the District Forum, without properly considering the objections, filed by the Opposite Parties, allowed the complaint. He further submitted that there was no cogent or convincing evidence, on record, to prove that the vehicle, in question, was having any manufacturing defect. He further submitted that whenever the vehicle was brought by the complainant, for servicing, the same was duly attended to as per the Warranty policy. He further submitted that the compensation and costs, awarded by the District Forum are also on the higher side. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case M/s. E.I.D Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Baby Benjamine Thushara, I (1992) CPJ 272 (NC), Bharat Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier, (1996) 4 SCC 704; Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Union of India (2000) CTJ 205, HVPNL Vs. Mahavir (2001) 10 SCC 659, Bank of Baroda Vs. Arvind Modern Dal and Rice Mill, 1996 (1) CPJ 43 NCDRC, and Commercial Officer Vs. Bihar Warehousing Corporation, 1991 (1) CPJ 40 NCDRC. The Counsel, therefore, prayed that the appeals be accepted and the impugned order, be set aside.
11. On the contrary, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the expert report (Annexure X), clearly stated that there was rattling sound from the engine of the vehicle, when the same was driven between the speed of 40 KM/hr to 80 KM/hr, which clearly proved that there was some manufacturing defect, in the engine. He further submitted that since the expert report was furnished by the qualified and experienced persons, working in the prestigious institution, therefore, the District Forum, after taking into consideration, the said report, rightly allowed the complaint. He further submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties, failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence, contrary to the report of the experts, to show that there was no rattling sound coming out of the engine of the vehicle. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order, passed by the District Forum, being just and fair, is liable to be upheld.
12. The case of respondent No.1/complainant was that the vehicle was giving problems from the very beginning of its purchase and even its engine was giving rattling noise. On the other hand, the case of the appellants/ Opposite Parties, was that neither there was any rattling noise in the engine of the vehicle, nor the same was suffering from any inherent/manufacturing defect. As per the opinion of the experts Annexure ‘X’, rattling sound was coming out of the engine of the vehicle, when it was driven between the speed of 40 Km/hr to 80 Km/hr. As this report was prepared and furnished by a Committee of highly qualified and experienced persons, comprising Dr. V. P. Singh, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt, PEC University of Technology, U.T., Chandigarh, Sh. Sushant Samir, Assistant Professor and Sh. Gopal Dass, W.I., working in the Punjab Engineering College, U.T., Chandigarh, which is a prestigious and renowned Institution, the same could not be ignored or brushed aside, unless it was controverted by cogent and convincing expert evidence by the Opposite Parties. Neither the appellants/Opposite Parties, produced any document, showing that diagnostic tests were conducted, on the vehicle, in question, and all the required parameters were found OK, nor they produced anything, to prove that the rattling noise coming from the engine of the vehicle, in question, was equivalent, to other vehicles, of the same segment. Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence, the expert report (Annexure ‘X’), which is legal and valid, cannot be discarded, on mere bald allegations of the appellants/Opposite Parties. Further, the order dated 09.02.2012, vide which the District Forum referred the vehicle, in question, to the Punjab Engineering College, Sector 12, Chandigarh, for expert view, was not challenged by the appellants/Opposite Parties, at the relevant time. Therefore, at this stage, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants/Opposite Parties, to say that the said expert report, was not reliable. In these circumstance, in our considered view, the District Forum, while taking into consideration the expert report (Annexure ‘X’) rightly allowed the complaint.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
14. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals bearing Nos.413/2012 and 416/2012, filed by the appellants/ Opposite Parties, are dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.
16. Certified copy of this order be placed in First Appeal No.416 of 2012.
17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
20th February, 2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.413 of 2012)
Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Date:
ORDER
Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal and appeal No.416 of 2012, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, have been dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
(NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 416 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 17.12.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 20.02.2013 |
Tata Motors Limited through its Senior Manager Legal i.e. Mr. M. K. Bipin Dass, Commercial Division, 5, Jeewan Tara Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and mentioned in the complaint head note as Tata Motors through its Authorised Dealer, M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
Versus
1.Sh.Sameer Vasudeva Partner M/s Satyam Enterprises, SCF No.13, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.
….Respondent/Complainant.
2.M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot NO.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase- II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
….Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
1. For orders, see the orders passed in First Appeal No.413 of 2012 titled “M/s. Joshi Auto Zone Vs. Sh. Sameer Vasudeva and another”, vide which this appeal has been dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
Date: 20-2-2013.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Ad
