Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.Anita Marathe-Advocate for the original opponent nos.1&2, Mr.D.S.Hatle-Advocate for the original opponent no.3- dealer, Original complainant in person are heard.
Both these appeals takes an exception to an order dated 25/08/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.50/2005, Mr.Mulraj Vallabhaji Vador V/s. Tata Motors Ltd. and others; passed by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (herein after referred as ‘forum’ for brevity). Undisputed facts are that respondent/original complainant Mulraj had purchased Indigo GLX Black colour car bearing Registration no.MH-05-H- 8308 from appellant/original opponent no.3-M/s.Fortune Cars Pvt.Ltd. Said car was manufactured by opponent no.1–M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. Said car was purchased on 15/01/2003 for a total value of `4,78,785/-.
It is the contention of the complainant-Mr.Mulchand that since from the time he purchased the car, it started giving trouble and, therefore, on and often it was referred for repairs to the Garage belonging to dealer/opponent no.3- M/s.Fortune Cars Pvt.Ltd. (herein after referred as ‘dealer’ for brevity) during the period 24/01/2003 to 28/01/2004 on 15 occasions for various problems the car was sent to the Garage. However, no satisfaction was received by the complainant on those repairs. Ultimately, he sent a notice dated 08/06/2004 through the lawyer and asked for replacement of the car or refund the consideration paid for the car and also claimed `7.5 lakhs towards the compensation. When said notice received cold response, he filed consumer complaint on 17/03/2005. Said consumer complaint came to be allowed directing opponent no.1 –M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. and opponent no.3- M/s.Fortune Cars Pvt.Ltd.-dealer to jointly and severally pay `3 lakhs as compensation within 45 days and, failing which, said amount to carry interest @ 8% p.a. Besides this complainant was awarded `15,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and `5,000/- as cost. Feeling aggrieved thereby opponent no.1 –M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. filed appeal no.A/09/1182 while dealer filed appeal no.A/11/128.
Since both these appeals involve identical question of facts and common question of law, are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
In the instant case, as far as manufacturing defect of the car is concerned, there is hardly anything that is pointed out by the complainant either in the complaint, much less, established by the complainant. Therefore, case as against the manufacturer, namely, appellant /opponent no.1 -Tata Motors fails.
It is alleged by the complainant that for about on 15 occasions during the period 24/01/2003 to 28/01/2004, the car was referred for various problems for repairs and those were attended as per the job cards. Copies of those job cards are also placed on record, which reflect that the complaints thereof are of different nature and those were attended as required. At no point of time after the new job was carried out, there appears to be any complaint from the complainant. One of the last job cards dated 12/07/2004 shows that the vehicle had run by that time 39489 k.ms. Such contention is raised by the opponents in their written version. If the vehicle had any prominent manufacturing defect, then vehicle would not have run to this extent. Therefore, we find that forum did not appreciate evidence placed on record properly, nay, perversely and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Impugned order is an unreasoned order since it does not refer to legal questions involved. Under the circumstances, complainant failed to establish his case even against the dealer for alleged deficiency in service. In fact, no such deficiency in service could be inferred, as alleged, once the repairs from time to time were carried out. We find complainant failed to establish his case. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal nos. A/09/1182 & A/11/128 are allowed.
Impugned order dated 25/08/2009 is set aside.
In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 10th October, 2011.
