Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/252/2013

L.Alagusundaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

TAFE Reach Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Rm.Subbiah

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                              Date of Complaint Filed:08.01.2013

                                                                                                                           Date of Reservation     :08.02.2022

                                                                                                                           Date of Order              :28.02.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:    Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                  Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.252/2013

MONDAY, THE 28^th DAY OF FEBURARY 2022

Mr.L. Alagusundaram,

No.39, South Bank Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                                                                                    ..      Complainant                                             

..Versus..

1.The Managing Director,

   TATA Motors Passengers Car Business Unit,

   Car Product Group, One forbes,

   5^th Floor, Dr.V.B. Gandhi Marg,

   Mumbai – 400 001.

 

2.The Manager,

   TAFE Reach Limited,

   803, Anna Salai,

   Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                                         ..     Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. Rm. Subbiah

Counsel for the 1^st  opposite party   : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh

Counsel for the 2^nd  opposite party   : M/s. D. Jawahar

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of Opposite parties and having treated the written arguments of Complainant   as oral arguments of the complainant and we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays not to publish the advertisement with false assurances and to replace the vehicle with a new one giving mileage of 22.4 kilometer per litre and to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and on the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked. The complainant has filed the written argument. The 1^st Opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the 1^st opposite party documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked. The 2^nd Opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the 2^nd Opposite party no documents was filed.

3.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The complainant has purchased a new TATA INDICA VISTA Quadrajet Car for Rs.4,34,411/- on 07.07.2010 and its Registration Number is TN-06-B-6004.  At that time of purchasing the car, the opposite parties gave an assurance that the said model car will give 22.4 km per litre. But to his shock and surprise, the said car gives a mileage of 12 km per litre while driving in the city and 14 km per litre while driving on the high way. On compliant the second opposite party conducted a mileage test on 26.06.2011 and it gives only 15.3 km per litre on East Coast Road and Highways. The opposite party have stated that the mileage will improve after completion of 5000 and 10000 kms. But such improvement was not made in the vehicle. Hence this complaint was filed.

4.      Written version of the 1^st Opposite party in brief:-

                It is submitted that the mileage of the vehicle depends upon several factors such as driving habits, road condition, traffic condition, terrain etc. It is specifically stated that the complainant never reported of low mileage at any of the authorised service station. It is evident from the service history that at no point of time the said vehicle of the complainant reported with the mileage issue at any of the service station of the opposite party. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      Written version of the 2^nd Opposite party in brief:-

        This opposite party never gave any warranty for fuel expenses of Rs.1.58 / km nor the mileage of 22.4 km per litre. Mileage of a car depend on number of factors including driving skill, condition of road, traffic conditions, maintenance, quality of petrol etc., therefore neither this opposite party nor the first opposite party can be faulted for the same. The complainant is put to strict roof the allegation of the car gave mileage of 12 km per litre while driving in the city and 14 km per litre while driving on the high ways. It is wrong to allege that this opposite party never adheard to the complainants request and that they did not check the mileage. No promise was given by the opposite parties regarding the mileage. Improvement in mileage is not in the hands of the manufacture or the dealer. Hence it is requested to dismiss the complaint.

 

6.      The Points for consideration are:-

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complaint is entitled to get the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3.To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

7.       Point No.1

        On perusal of Ex.A12 Paper Publication in Hindu dated 16.08.2010 the TATA Company made an advertisement under the style of “Drive Smart. Drive Diesel” in this advertisement it is mentioned save up to 60% on fuel expenses with India’s most fuel efficient diesel range Vista Quadrajet:22.4 KMPL Rs.1.58 / KM. As per Ex.A8 the car gives only 15.3 KMPL and the expenses for fuel is 3.27 as on 26.06.2011 of the mileage test formate of the opposite party. Therefore the opposite parties gave a false promise to the customer in respect of the mileage condition as well as the cost of the fuel.  Contrary to Ex.A12 and Ex.A8 opposite parties submitted their written versions. On available records it is found that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice by publishing false news in the News paper. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

8.       Point Nos 2 & 3:-

        We have discussed and decided that the opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice while selling the car. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and sufferings caused by the opposite parties and also a sum of Rs.2 laks towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Further the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The opposite parties shall not publish the advertisement with false assurances. However, the car was purchased on 07.07.2010 and now we are in 28.02.2022. Therefore directing to replace the vehicle with a new one giving mileage of 22.4 KM per litre is not feasible one. Accordingly Point Nos 2 & 3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are hereby directed not to publish the advertisement with false assurances in future. The  opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and also towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed as against the complainant. It is further directed that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. The opposite parties 1 & 2 shall comply the above order jointly and severally within three months from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the above accrued amounts with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realisation of the amount.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 28^th  day of February  2022.

      

       T.VINODH KUMAR                                       R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                     

                   MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	-	TATA Indica Vista Diesel euro IV price List
Ex.A2	03.07.2010 07.07.2010	Receipt
Ex.A3	08.07.2010	Tax invoice
Ex.A4	-	R.C Book
Ex.A5	11.07.2010	Delivery Challan
Ex.A6	14.07.2010	E-remainder by Insurance Company to Complainant
Ex.A7	05.02.2011	Letter by complainant to Opposite Party one and two
Ex.A8	26.02.2011	Road Test Report
Ex.A9	-	Oriental Insurance
Ex.A10	08.09.2011	Letter by complainant to Opposite Party one and two
Ex.A11	-	Acknowledgement card copy
Ex.A12	-	Advertisement copy

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st  opposite party:-

Ex.B1	26.02.2011	Test Report
Ex.B2	24.04.2013	Service History

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 2^nd opposite party:- Nil

 

 

  T.VINODH KUMAR                                                  R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                                       

         MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT