DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.696/2010
Shri Rajat Duggal
S/o Shri Rajesh Duggal
R/o Sainik Farms
New Delhi. ….Complainant
VERSUS
Sanya Motors
Authorised Dealer Tata Motors
D-13/1, Defence Colony
New Delhi-110024.
Tata Motors
C/o Tata Motors Commercial Division
26th Floor, World Trade Centre-1
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution:26.11.2010
Date of Order :16.08.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
The complainant has requested to pass an award directing the Sanya Motors and TATA Motors (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & 2 respectively) (i) to hold the OPs guilty of providing the deficient service and defective goods; (ii) to provide a new TATA Indigo XL Grant Car; (iii)to pay compensation of Rs. 7 Lac for defective goods and for mental agony and cost of legal expenses etc.
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The complainant purchased a TATA Indigo XL Grand being top model on 19.7.2007 from OP-1 bearing Regn. No. DL 3C AL 7855. The said vehicle started giving troubles to be precise on 8.10.2007. The complainant took the vehicle immediately to the service centre of OP-1. He was informed that RPM of his vehicle was very high and required to be changed and so it was changed. In Nov. 2007 the locking system of said vehicle failed and complainant got it replaced at his own cost and made payment of Rs.18,121/-. The father of the complainant had to go out side and drove the said vehicle. The said vehicle broke down around midnight on the road. In May 2008, the OP-1 told that keys of the locks were defective and defective keys were also got replaced. The tyres of the said vehicle failed on the 26,000 KM only. In June 2008, the vehicle, all of a sudden, around 01.00 a.m. in the night got locked from inside when complainant and his wife were inside the vehicle. After struggling for an hour, the locks got opened. On Sept. 2008, the clutch plates and gear box turned out to be faulty. The complainant had to pay for the replacement of the said defective parts. Then again, the complainant spent a sum of Rs.26,126/- to get the problem fixed. The left door of his said vehicle also got problem for which, he was asked to pay by OP-1 on the ground that said problem is caused by banging on the door. The complainant also brought to notice of the OP-1 leaking of the roof. The OP-1 blocked leak by putting tar-coal. Music system of the vehicle also got defective and driver seat was also having some defect. The said vehicle was under extended warranty of 3 years even then, he was made to pay Rs.60,000/- to 65,000/- on the ground that these are not covered under policy cover. The Complainant had tried to show that he was given defective vehicle and OP-1 & 2 had adopted the unfair trade practice as, the vehicle suffers from defects from the very beginning. Hence the complaint.
OP-2 filed written submission asserting that the vehicle in question is acclaimed for its class and quality. The manufactured vehicle pass through stringent quality checks and road trials before the actual commercial production starts and the vehicles are marked only after being approved by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). The vehicles manufactured by the OP-2 are provided services through large network of authorised dealers and TATA Motors Service Stations. These workshops provide schedule service, running repairs, major repairs, replacement of spare parts. Toll free helpline is provided to extend the help to the consumers. The OP-2 while asserting on the interalia also raised preliminary objections:-
The present complaint is badly time-barred. The vehicle was purchased on 19.7.2007and instituted the complaint in Nov. 2010. The complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer dispute’ as there is neither manufacturing defect nor any deficiency in service. OP provided warranty for 18 month from the date of sale of vehicle. Warranty of the vehicle expired on 18.1.2009. The OP-2 also averred that the complainant failed to follow guidelines given in Operator’s Service Book as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle. The complainant also failed to carry out schedule services of vehicles as recommended in service schedule. The first service was required to be carried out at 1000-1500 KMs or one month whichever is earlier second service to be carried out 10,000-15,000 KMs or 12 months and 3rd service at 20,000-20,500 KMS or 24 months and 4th at 30,000-35000 KMs or 4 months. The complainant brought the vehicle for 1st service at 12,242 KMs, 2nd service at 19,546 KMs, 3rd service at 36036 and 4th service at 59540 KMs. The complainant did not carry out services as recommended in service schedule. This material fact was concealed by the complainant from Hon’ble Commission.
It is also averred that vehicles are delivered to the customers after carrying out the Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) by the dealers. It is pertinent to state that the OP is “ISO TS/16949” certified which is International Standard for quality system. The alleged defects cannot be determined without proper analysis or sending it to appropriate laboratory.
The complainant had not advanced any expert report with regard to defects mentioned in the complaint. The OP-2 relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Commission in the case of Dr. B.K. Kumar Rao & Anr. [(1(2010) CPJ 19 (NC)] for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The OP also lays emphasis on the fact that the complainant should adhere to terms of contract and further referred the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL World Wide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and onus would be on him to prove the terms of contract. The OP-2 further states that the complainant could not prove any manufacturing defects hence liable to be dismissed.
OP-2 and complainant have filed written submissions and evidence-in affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has gone into the material in details and due consideration was also given to the arguments as well.
It is noted that on the purchase of the vehicle in question, the vehicle was brought to the service centre of OP-1 and defects in RPM was noticed and same was got replaced. There had been many occasion when the vehicle was brought to the service centre of OP-1 and he was asked to make payment as maintained by the complainant. There is dispute on this fact also that the vehicle was under extended warranty of 3 years as contended by complainant but OP-2 specifically, mentioned in its reply that the vehicle was under warranty of 18 months. OP-1 tried to show the vehicle was not under warranty and the complainant was asked to pay
The OP-2 had referred the ratios of judgments of Hon’ble National Commission with regard to necessity of expert report for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Despite many averments for indicating defects at various times, but the complainant does not satisfy the requirement of expert reports with respect to manufacturing defects. Reliance was also placed on the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dr. A.S. Narayana Rao & Anr (Supra). The OP-2 also referred the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharti Knitting Company (Supra) as discussed above, asserting the binding force of terms & conditions of contract.
The OP-2 also led evidence with respect to failure of complainant for adhering to scheduled service as explained above. Service history of said vehicle was also advanced by the OP-2. OP-2 also further referred the case of Bhagwan Dass Agarwal Vs. TATA Enginerring & Locomotive Co. Ltd. as decided on 13.3.2009 in R.P. No. 1927 of 2007 the Hon’ble National Commission held that “ The warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with out standard repair procedure, or by any person other than our sales or service establishments, our authorised dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres in any way so as, in our judgment which shall be final and binding, to affect its reliability, nor shall it apply if, in our opinion which shall be final and binding, the vehicle or part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and servicing or accident or loading in excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us or the services prescribed in Operator’s Service Book are not carried out at our sales or service establishments, our authorised dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres.
It was noted that no defect either minor or major was brought to the notice of this Commission with respect to engine etc. which are of great importance for the longevity of vehicles. Since all defects so narrated were brought to the notice of OP-1 and got replaced at the workshop/service station of OP-1 either on payment or otherwise.
In nutshell, this Commission after considering all facts and circumstances in the case, is of considered view that there had been some defects as mentioned above in The averments of the complainant such as speed of RPM, breaking down of the said in the initial period of purchase, failing of tryres at 26,000 kms only, defective keys and locks and in Sept. 2008, the failure of clutches warranty period. OP-1 had dealt with these defects. Since OP-1 has not joined the proceedings, it is vividly clear that some of defect as reported by complainant were of initial period and would be within the warranty period. We are of considered view that the OP-1 is responsible to the extent as the defects in the aforesaid vehicle were reported in the very beginning of the purchase to him only. Hence OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for defects so mentioned above and other requests such as the replacement of vehicle are found devoid of merit in view of the various ratios of Hon’ble Court/ Commission as mentioned above. As regards to OP-2, this Commission feels that the explanation given by him is just and fair. Hence OP-2 is discharged from the onus of any liability in the matter. The above quoted amount should be paid by OP-1 within 2 months from the receipt of this order failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be levied till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.
