Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 07.04.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.147/2009, Shashank Atmaram Sawantdesai V/s Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. Service deficiency alleged in respect of repairs of the vehicle and upholding the contention, Forum below awarded the relief directing the Opposite Party to effect necessary repairs. Being aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the Opposite Parties.
(2) Admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
(3) In the instant case we heard both parties at length, particularly the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent – Mr.Prakash Kadam about satisfaction of the award to revoke warranty, particularly in respect of paragraph no.8 of their consumer complaint what should be the evidence about invoking of the alleged warranty. His answers were not satisfactory.
(4) Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the warranty is operative on the date of incident, i.e. on 28.07.2009 when ultimately it was found that after breaking of the connecting rod, the rod hit the engine and there was major breakdown of the vehicle, it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service, on part of the opposite party, as alleged. It is also pointed out that prior to this incident on 30.04.2009 when there were certain complaints and the vehicle was inspected at the various service centers, it was found that the oil engine level was not proper and at that time Respondent/Original Complainant ensured to fill the engine oil up to the level required per prescribed limit. It is the grievance of the Complainant that at that time the mechanic or official of the service center ought to have brought to his notice that there can be some defect in the vehicle whereby the engine oil is consumed or leaked and the level of engine oil is not maintained and therefore, the serious defect in future may arise if the level of the oil is not maintained. On the contrary it is the case of the Appellant/Opposite Party that it is for the vehicle user who ought to have taken precaution to maintain prescribed oil level. It is not the case of the Respondent that there was any manufacturing defect. Forum below observed that there is no evidence led pointing manufacturing defect. Under the circumstances only on hypothesis and summarization which has no basis from the material on record, Forum below reached to the conclusion that there is service deficiency and gave direction as per the impugned order.
(5) We find that the appreciation of the evidence which is led before the Forum below is perverse and per se erroneous and cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. In the instant case as could be reflected from the statement made by the Complainant himself, an inference can be drawn that it is the case where vehicle was not maintained properly. If the vehicle is run without prescribed level of engine oil and ultimately resulted into the breakdown then, certainly, it has nothing to do with manufacturing defect, since it relates to the negligence on the part of the vehicle owner to maintain his vehicle properly. Even it will not be covered under the warranty. If we look to the warranty clause it is mentioned that “this warranty shall be limited to repairing or replacing free of charge, such parts of the vehicle or the engine as the case maybe, which, in our opinion, are defective”. But, here the parts were damaged due to negligence on the part of the Respondent/original Complainant for not maintaining the prescribed level of engine oil. Under the circumstance there being no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties, finding recorded by Forum below is erroneous. We hold accordingly and pas the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order is set aside.
(iii) In the result, Consumer Complaint No.147/2009 stands dismissed.
(iv) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
