DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

  Case No. 504/2008

Sh. Nakul Kumar Tyagi

R/o A-Block (146),

Gali No.3, Tomor Colony,

Burari, Delhi                                                                -Complainant                                             Versus

1.      Sanya Motors

          Through its Manager

          Mr. Resham

          D 13/1 Defence Colony,

          New Delhi-110024

2.      Sanya Service Station

          Through its Manager (Workshop)

          Mr. Ahulwalia

          C-101, Maya Puri Industrial Area,

          Phase-II, New Delhi-110064

3.      Tata Motors

          through its Manager

          Mr. Zamil Ahmed

          Unit No.305, Signature Tower-B,

          South City, N.H.-8, Gurgaon, Haryana.

4.      Tata Motors

          Marketing and Customer Support

          Passander Car Business Unit

          Through its Manager

          Zamil Ahmed

          8^th Floor Centre No.1,

          World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade,

          Mumbai-400005                                                     -Opposite Parties

                                  Date of Institution: 05.08.2008       Date of Order : 16.03.2018

Coram:

N.K. Goel, President

Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Complainant’s case in the amended complaint in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo XL Grand Dicore Royal Bugundy (cherry colour) vide chassis No.609171ASZPO5890, engine No.1.4 Dicor 0.5ASZPO1061 (Regn. No. DL 3CA7415) from the showroom of OP No.1 on 30.01.2007 for  a total amount of Rs.7.75 lacs. It is inter-alia stated that the complainant started feeling troubles in the car within 20 days of the purchase when it showed problems such as vibration in engine, smoke level was very high, high level noise from engine and other problems at the time of starting of the car.  He went to the showroom of OP No.1 but he was diverted to Maya Puri stating that Sania workshop is there. Accordingly, the complainant reached there and the car was inspected and the Manager of workshop Mr. Ahulwalia told him to leave the car for 3-4 days and accordingly the complainant had to leave his car there. The car was delivered to him on 23.02.07 but when the complainant started the car he noticed that all the problems were intact.  The first service of the car was to be done on completion of 5000 kms. He again went to the Manager of workshop and took the vehicle to the workshop where Mr. Ahulwalia told him that the engine of the car was not working properly and it may be defected. The complainant again left his car at Maya Puri workshop for change of engine and to remove all other defects and it was delivered to him on 26.04.07 but during the driving of the said car the complainant noticed some problems inspite of change of engine the problem still existed. On 15.05.07, he was left with no other work but to see and repair the car. He ultimately visited the workshop and contacted Mr. Ahulwalia and told him about the problem and also a new problem was being generated regarding the sedimental at approx. 9,500km. run; that he was told that due to multiple service provided by service station the existing software multiple  function system was damaged to control the interior was changed somewhere in June, 2007.  The Complainant got the car repaired many a times and was forced to pay Rs.2300/- for change of oil filter after  20000 kms. run though the car was still in warranty period despite this problems were not sorted out.  After some months, the complainant noticed that there was electric problem in the car. He went to some other service station where he was told that due to this problem, the change of oil filter was not required. On 24.08.07 the complainant went to OP No.2 for engine oil leakage. Neither the defect/fault was removed to his satisfaction nor any satisfactory reply was given.  According to the complainant “it appears that as the company has delivered the defective piece to the complainant otherwise how a new car can gave so much trouble to any consumer and that to the extent of change the engine, cylinder head injectors and many other major parts despite all old defects are persisting in the car being  fed up with the service authorities people and with the problem in the car the complainant approached Mr. Jamil Ahmed, Tata Motors Customer CE-II Customer Care at Gurgaon, Haryana somewhere in October, 2007 but this also could not solve any problem”. According to the complainant, he requested Mr. Ahmed to change the engine again. Case of the Complainant inter-alia is that after changing all different parts and other accessories even engine of the car was changed it was not working, the complainant asked the authorities to take the car back and money be returned. However, the company showroom Manager flatly and loudly told him that thing once sold cannot be replaced what to talk about refund of the money. It is stated that OP No. 1 to 3 are jointly or severally liable to compensate the complainant for the agony/trauma suffered by him on account of number of visits made by him to the workshops of OPs and spending his office hours. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:-

“a)     Pass an order to take back the car Tata- Indigo-XL Grand Dicore Model Vide Chassis No.609171ASZPO6890 vide Registration No.DL-3CA-C7415 delivered on 30.01.2007,

b)  Pass an order to pay Rs.80,000/- towards call charges, conveyance charges and towards running from all the distance from Camp (Burari) to Defence Colony, then Maya Puri, then Peeragarhi and then Gurgaon and then back to his home Burari and having other taxi and the private cars. The complainant has to pay the fare to the hired car and taxis for his office as car was in the workshop for several days,

C)      Pass an order to pay Rs.4 lacs to the complainant towards the mental harassment, physical torture and other problems, waste of time, money and the big losses in the business as the complainant is working as investment consultant, real estate agent and dealing in the stock market at the National and International level, and  he has spent valuable  time getting his car repair and sleepless and restless nights in the worry of his car and to pay back Rs.7.70 lacs to the complainant at the time of purchasing the car with 12% which is Rs. 9.2 Lacs for 20 months from filling case against all the damages and compensation in favour of the complainant and against the respondent.

d)      Pass an order to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation charges and lawyers conveyance charges.

 In its reply the OP No.1 has inter-alia stated that as per averments made in the complaint the car in question suffers from inherent manufacturing defects but there are no manufacturing defect in the car. It is stated that even if for the sake of arguments it is admitted that there was any manufacturing defect in the car the OP No.1 cannot be made liable for the same as the OP No.1 is merely an agent of Tata Motors and as such cannot be held liable for manufacturing defects. It is stated that on 25.05.07 the complainant had brought the car to the workshop of OP No.1 after an accident and the fog lamp of the car had been damaged and the same was thereafter refitted. On 12.01.08 the complainant had again brought the car to the workshop of OP No.1 after an accident and the splash guard, front bumper, bezel fog lamp of left hand side had been changed; that other miscellaneous accidental work was also carried out; that the complainant was even charged Rs.28739/- for the said work. On 25.01.08, the Complainant again brought the car to the workshop of OP No.1 after an accident and the left side rear view mirror had been changed. On 02.06.08 the complainant again brought his car to

the workshop of OP No.1 after an accident as the back light glass had been damaged and changed; that other miscellaneous accidental work was also carried out in the car. On 15.09.08, the complainant had again brought his car to the workshop of OP No.1 after an accident and the bezel fog lamp on the left hand side was damaged and changed.  It is stated that the above facts clearly go to show that the complainant had been negligent in handling his car and the said car had met with one accident after another and as such the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. It is stated that the complainant had brought the car on 23.02.07, 19.04.17, 14.06.17, 20.09.07 and an  amount of Rs.146/- inclusive of taxes for the change of oil filter on 19.04.07 and Rs.144/- was charged  on 20.09.07 for minor adjustment. It is stated that the Complainant has driven his car 33,490 kms.  since the date of its purchase i.e. till 25.09.08 merely in  over one and half year.  It is denied that the defective vehicle had been sold to the complainant. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

OP No.2 has been proceeded exparte passed by our predecessors.

In the written statement of OP No.3 & 4 the facts about meeting of the accidents of the car in question have been reiterated and it is stated that the complainant had used the vehicle negligently and carelessly and hence these OPs were discharged from their liability under the warranty clause which is clearly mentioned in clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the warranty. It is stated that the car in question has already covered more than 33000 kms. within a period of one and half years of its purchase and it is due to the carelessness and negligent handling and driving of the car by the complainant that it had met with accidents many times and, hence, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. It is denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the car since the vehicle sold to the complainant was of the highest quality and the Complainant had taken the delivery thereof after pre-delivery inspection and entire satisfaction. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply of OP No.1. He has not denied the averments made with regard to meeting of the car in question with accidents on different dates as detailed in the reply of OP No.1 but has gone to reiterate the averments made in the complaint.  He has not specifically denied that he had run the vehicle 33000 kms. within a period of one and half years of its purchase. According to him, the  engine of the vehicle had been changed within 4 months from the date of delivery and the said vehicle had to be brought for repairs for more than 17 times during one year time from the date of delivery which shows about the quality of the  vehicle.

He has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OP No.3 & 4 but has not denied the fact regarding the meeting of the vehicle in question with accident on the dates specified in the reply or that the vehicle had already run more than 33,490 kms.  since the date of its purchase i.e. till 25.09.08

Thereafter, OP No.1 has been proceeded exparte by our predecessors.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. M. K. Bipin Das, Manager (legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.3 & 4.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the contesting parties. 

On 05.11.15 it was stated on behalf of the OP No.3 & 4 before this Forum that the vehicle in question had already been plied about 56563 kms. as on 26.12.09. However, the Complainant stated that the vehicle in question has only run 44000-45000 kms. The Complainant was directed to get the car in question videographed from different angles including the Speedo Meter and to file the CD.  The Complainant has filed a CD on the record. Copy of service history of the car in question has also been filed which we mark as Mark Z for the purposes of identification. 

We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the complainant and have also carefully gone through the file. No one has appeared on behalf of the OPs to advance oral arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf.

There is material on the record to prove that the car in question had met with accidents number of times as detailed in the replies filed on behalf of the OPs and reiterated in the affidavit of the witness of OP No.3 & 4. It is not the case of the complainant that the engine of the car in question had been got repaired/changed under any protest. Thus, in our considered opinion, it does not give any cause to the complainant to allege that the vehicle in question had been suffering from any manufacturing defect.  Had he been aggrieved, he would have certainly raised an objection to the replacement of the engine of the car and asked the OPs to replace the car in question with a new car but he did not do so. Hence, he relinquished his claim  for pleading any manufacturing defect in the car in question.  The service history of the car in questions proves that the car in question had already done/run 47705 as on 12.11.09.  We have seen the CD and from a perusal of the same the following facts emerge:

1. Old tyres
2. Body old
3. Mudguard missing
4. Front bumper missing
5. Front parking light broken
6. Wiper missing. 

The Complainant has not taken the photographs of the Speedo Meter for some reasons best known to him despite our specific direction given to him to get the vehicle photographed from different angles including the Speedo Meter.  Therefore, it appears that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the real facts.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove we find that the complainant has failed to prove that there was/is any manufacturing defect in the car or that he is entitled to either of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.  Hence, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

          In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

           Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.03.2018