Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/4/2009

L. Mathiyazhagan - Complainant(s)

Versus

SICAL Act India(TATA Motors),(a Division of Sical Logistics Ltd.) & 2 ors - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

                                                                                  C.C. No.4 of 2009

                                                                                                                        Orders pronounced on:     26.04.2022

            

L.Mathiyazhagan,

No.16, Thirumalai Nagar,

Thirumullaivoyal,

Chennai 600 062.                                                                                                                                  ... Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. SICAL ACT INDIA (TATA MOTORS),

(a Division of Sical Logistics Ltd.)

No.2, Sambandam Street,

T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

 

2. The Manager,

Act India,

(A Division of Sical Logistics Ltd.),

Formerly South India

     Corporation (Agencies) Ltd.,

No.131, G.N.T. Road,

Ponniammanmedu,

Madhavaram, Chennai 600 010.

 

3. Tata Motors Ltd.,

(Passenger Car Business Unit),

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Reg. Office at Bombay House,

24, Homi Modi Street,

Fort, Mumbai 400 001.                                                                                                                         ...Opposite Parties

 

             Counsel for Complainant : M/s.J.Dharmarajan

             For OP Nos.1 & 2            : M/s. Lakshmi Associates

             Counsel for OP No.3        : M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh

            

          This complaint came up for final hearing on 18.03.2022 and, after hearing the arguments and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

                                                                                              O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. - President.

 

        The complainant herein seeks this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties to pay him Rs.5 lakh and Rs.25 lakh towards mental agony and deficiency in service, besides costs of the case.

 

        2. The case of the complainant, as projected in the complaint filed, in brief, is as follows:-

        On 16.05.2008, the complainant had purchased a vehicle, namely, ‘407 City Ride Tata Motors Model’ with engine No.497 PTC 35 KSZ 607778, for a sum of Rs.6,12,283/- from the first OP. On the date of booking, he had paid the down-payment of Rs.1,17,183/- to the 1^st OP apart from a sum of Rs.18,700/- towards Insurance.  For the balance sum of Rs.4,60,000/-, he had availed loan from Tata Finance and the repayment of loan was in 35 instalments at the rate of Rs.18,700/- towards EMI.   On 16.05.2008, after taking delivery of the vehicle from the 1^st OP, the complaint drove the vehicle and noticed that it was in a damaged condition, whereupon, he surrendered the vehicle to the service station of the 2^nd OP, who issued a job card for having taken the vehicle and informed the complainant that the vehicle would be returned after rectification of the defect.  After 2 days, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP who gave evasive replies and when the same was brought to the notice of the 1^st OP, he made the complainant believe that the vehicle would be replaced with a new one.  Since the 1^st OP did not act upon the assurance, the complainant sent a letter to the 1^st OP requesting to return the amount that was already paid by him towards the vehicle and all the signed documents that were handed over by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. Even after lapse of 4 months, there was no response either from the 1^st OP or the 2^nd OP.  By suppressing the defects and damages in the vehicle, the 1^st and 2^nd OPs induced the complainant to purchase the vehicle and ultimately, by such acts of the said OPs, the complainant incurred monetary loss and suffered mental agony.   Hence, he issued a legal notice dated 16.09.2008, calling upon the said OPs to replace the vehicle within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and to pay compensation for the reason of non-utility of the vehicle for the past 4 months, but, there was no response for the same.  Hence, he has come forward with the present complaint for the relief as stated above.

 

        3. Resisting the same, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 2 have filed a Version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:

        OP Nos.1 and 2 are dealers and it is the 3^rd OP, who is the manufacturer.  The vehicle in question was taken delivery from these OPs, only after due personal inspection by the complainant himself and the said fact is evident from the delivery note.   On return of the vehicle, the OPs attended the minor defects and called upon the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle, however, he never turned up to take back the vehicle.  The OPs/dealers do not have powers to replace the vehicle without an express authority offered to them by the manufacturer or the financier to do such replacement.  Under no circumstances, the OPs could facilitate replacement of the vehicle, that too, after the terms of finance have been finalized between the complainant and Tata Motors Finance Limited (TMFL).  Once the vehicle has been tied up under a finance scheme offered by the Financier, the dealers/OPs have nothing to do with the replacement of the vehicle for an altogether different vehicle and all such exceptional replacements must be authorized by the financier.  The complainant could have very well approached the TMFL and obtained their consent for necessary replacement, but, without doing so, he has come up with a frivolous claim against OP Nos.1 and 2.  In an endeavour to replace the present 16 Seater vehicle with a 12 Seater, the complainant is making false claims to derive unlawful gains.  The issue of exchanging 16 Seater with 12 Seater vehicle or with a new 16 Seater does not lie with the dealers/OPs-1 and 2 and the same could be decided only by the TMFL and the 3^rd OP/Manufacturer.  The present complaint insofar as it pertains to OP Nos.1 and 2 is only a false and vexatious litigation and hence, the same may have to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

               

        4.     The 3^rd OP/Manufacturer has filed a version, wherein, among other things, it is contended thus:

        At the time of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant on 16.05.2008, no defect was noticed by the 1^st OP, however, the complainant returned the vehicle to the workshop of the 1^st OP on the same day alleging that the vehicle delivered to him was a defective one.   As a matter of fact, the said vehicle was once again checked and made ready, however, despite intimations, the complainant did not come back to take delivery of the vehicle.   The alleged contention of the complainant that the 1^st OP assured for replacement of the vehicle is absolutely absurd and contrary to the terms and conditions of warranty which stipulates that the obligation of the manufacturer under the warranty shall be limited to repair and replacement of such parts, free of costs, if found to be defective when the vehicle being brought to the Manufacturer or the authorized dealers within the warranty period.   Though there was no defect in the vehicle, for the satisfaction of the complainant, the vehicle was once again inspected and checked and made ready, however, the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, was not willing to take delivery of the same despite repeated reminders given by the OP.  Inasmuch as there is no cause of action or any good reason for filing the complaint, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

        5. In order to substantiate their case and claim, the parties have filed their respective proof affidavits.  While the complainant has filed 4 documents as Exs.A1 to A4, the OPs have not filed any document.

 

        6.  Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

      It is the case of the complainant that, on 16.05.2008, after taking delivery of the vehicle, while driving the same, he could notice that the vehicle was in a damaged condition and hence, he returned it to the 2^nd OP.  Except that bald averment, nowhere in the complaint, he has stated in detail as to what is the exact nature and extent of damage that he noticed in the vehicle during that first ride.   When the damage was that much visible that the complainant could notice it in the first ride itself, nothing prevented him from producing any expert opinion from a Notified Laboratory suggesting any manufacturing defect so as to make a solid claim against the Manufacturer.  Even otherwise, he could have resorted to the procedure under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act for procuring a report on the nature of damage/defect.  Further, under Ex.A3 letter, dated 16.06.2008, that was written by the complainant to the first OP, seeking return of  the amount and the signed documents submitted before taking delivery, the complainant would state that, after taking delivery of the vehicle, he found it to be ‘already used’, ‘driver side door damaged and tinkering work’, ‘no painting, so many places are damaged’, ‘inner side seat covers also damaged’, etc., whereas, in the complaint, he merely stated that the vehicle was in a ‘damaged condition’. From the details given by the complainant in his own handwritten letter under Ex.A3, one could visualize that the vehicle was too much damaged without proper painting and full of scratches, not even fit for delivery in the name of a new brand particularly due to the glaring damage at the driver side door. While so, as to how the complainant willingly took delivery of such vehicle by paying down-payment and submitting all relevant documents remains a mystery.  In other words, in terms of Ex.A3, when defects and damages alleged to be widely visible, the case of the complainant that he could notice all those big damages and defects only at the time of the first ride after delivery of the vehicle taken by him is too big a pill to swallow.  At this juncture, one cannot simply brush aside the consistent stand of the OPs that, immediately after the vehicle was left with the 2^nd OP, the same was checked and made ready for delivery; however, it was the complainant, who did not turn up for taking delivery despite repeated reminders.  Although it is the claim of the complainant that an assurance was given by the 1^st OP for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new one, there is no material made available to substantiate such claim. In that regard, it is the stand of the OPs that no assurance was ever given for refund of money or replacement of vehicle, as the same would run against the terms of warranty that stipulate clearly that the obligation of the manufacturer under the warranty shall be limited to repair and replacement of such parts, free of costs, if found to be defective when the said vehicle being brought to the Manufacturer or the authorized dealers within the warranty period.   Since the averments in the complaint are so bald and vague that the same do not even suggest any proper cause of action against the OPs coupled with the fact that the complainant has miserably failed to adduce the expert opinion or to resort to the procedure under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act for getting a report about the damage/defect and also the present position that, after handing over of the vehicle with the 2^nd OP on 16.05.2008, now, almost 14 years have lapsed, the complainant cannot expect any relief from this Commission, especially when he miserably failed to maintain the case and claim in the manner known to law.  Hence, this Commission has no other option except to dismiss the complaint.

 

        7. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs.

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                   R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.A1       16.05.2008   Delivery Note issued by the 1^st OP.

Ex.A2       16.05.2008   Job Card issued by the 2^nd OP.

Ex.A3       16.06.2008   Letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st OP by courier

Ex.A4       11.09.2008   Legal Notice to the 1^st and 2^nd OPs with Ack.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPs

 

• Nil

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                          R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT       

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Orders/April/2022