PER  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.         This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals, arising out of the order dated 10.12.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1315 of 2009, vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the Ops to rectify the defect in the fuel gauge of the car in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of car in their workshop, and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It was further directed that if the defect was not removed within the aforesaid period, the OPs would be liable to replace the car with a brand new vehicle, without charging anything extra, from him, or to refund the total amount received from him, within 60 days, from the receipt of a copy of the order alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of order i.e. 10.12.2009 till its payment to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased a TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua car bearing registration No.HR-03K-1003 from the OP No.1 on 19.1.2009, for an amount of Rs.4,10,158/-. The complainant also got the accessories affixed in the abovementioned car amounting to Rs.22,558/-. It was stated that from day one i.e. 19.1.2009, the fuel gauge of car was not working properly. The fuel meter never showed the quantum of diesel in the tank accurately. It was further stated that, when the actual quantity of diesel in the car was approximately 1-2 liters, at that time the fuel meter of the car showed the quantum of diesel, in the car either more than half tank or sometimes near about full tank. Due to this reason, the complainant had suffered a lot of mental trauma and agony, as his car had stopped on the way a number of times. It was further stated that the complainant and his grandson approached OP No.1 for the rectification of the abovesaid problem in the car on 28.1.2009 and, thereafter, he made approximately 22 visits to OP No.1 for the repair of his car but nothing material had been done so far. Even Sh.Chatter Ji, Engineer of Ops No.2 and 3, who was called from Pune failed to remove the defect in the car. The complainant wrote a letter to OPs No. 2 & 3, upon which, on 18.8.2009 he received a call from OP No.3, to bring the vehicle to OP No.1 on 19.8.2009, as their engineers were coming for rectification of the defect in the car. On that date i.e. 19.8.2009, the complainant and his grandson went there. The OPs after checking the car, replaced the fuel tank and fuel gauge and went for a long return journey alongwith the complainant and his grandson from Chandigarh to Ambala to check the defect in the car, but to their utter surprise, even after making such alterations, the defect was still there in the car. It was further stated that after return to the garage of OP No.1, the engineers changed the wiring of the car, in the dashboard, and asked the complainant to drive the vehicle and if the problem still persisted then come to the OPs. It was further stated that, on the next day, the complainant again found the same problem existing in the car. He went to OP No.1 but it did not attend to the complainant. It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1 in which it was stated that the vehicle was sold, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant did not produce any expert evidence, to establish any manufacturing defect, in the vehicle. It was denied that the complainant visited them on 28.1.2009. It was stated that he visited them for the first time on 11.4.2009, as is evident from the job card and complained about the defect in the fuel gauge. On 11.4.2009, the fuel gauge of the car was replaced. The complainant again visited the answering OP on 20.8.2009 and signed the satisfaction note and, thereafter, the job card dated 19.8.2009 was closed.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied being wrong. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.            Separate reply was filed by OPs No. 2 & 3 on similar lines, as was filed by OP No.1. OPs No.2 and 3 also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the judgment.  

7.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/OP No.1, filed an appeal No.15 of 2010, whereas, Ops No.2 and 3 /appellants, filed appeal No.20 of 2010.

8.         We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case carefully.

9.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 (Hind Motors) in appeal No. 15 of 2010 contended that the learned District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to rectify the defect in the fuel gauge of the vehicle to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. It was contended that on 17.12.2009  the complainant brought his vehicle to the workshop of OP No.1 and the same was duly checked and needful was done. On 25.12.2009, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after long test drive alongwith an engineer of Tata Motors Ltd. But on 26.12.2009, the complainant again visited the premises of the appellant/OP No.1 and the needful was again done, as was evident from Annexure A-2 to A-4 job cards respectively. It was further submitted that the complainant had not produced any documentary and expert evidence to establish that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It was further stated that the job card dated 11.4.2009 shows that the complainant visited the OPs for the first time on 11.4.2009 and a complaint regarding the defect in the fuel gauge was lodged by him and the same was replaced immediately. It was further contended that the complainant wrongly stated that he visited the workshop of the appellant at least 22 times. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.1.

10.       The learned Counsel for Tata Motors Limited/appellants, in appeal No.20 of 2010 contended that the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP No.2 on 17.12.2009 with the problem that “fuel gauge inaccurate/not working and windshield wipers not working properly”. After doing the needful, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a satisfactory condition. On 26.12.2009, the vehicle was further brought to the workshop of respondent No.2 by a representative of the complainant with the problem “fuel gauge inaccurate/not working + fuel meter not giving indication properly”. The vehicle was ready for delivery since 27.12.2009 but the complainant refused to take the delivery of the same. Under these circumstances, Mr.Saket Chatrat and Mr.Subrota Bhattacharya also inspected the vehicle on 28.12.2009  and found that the fuel meter was indicating correctly but the complainant refused to accept the vehicle. Ultimately on 31.12.2009 a representative of the complainant came to collect the vehicle and gave remarks ‘fuel gauge is not OK’. It was further contended that fuel gauge was giving proper indication and was functioning normally. Respondent No.2 and the appellants replaced fuel filter cap and fuel tank unit was removed and refitted to rectify the alleged problem. The engineering team of the appellants also certified about the correct indication of the fuel gauge of the vehicle but still the complainant or his representative had not given satisfaction note and demanded the replacement of the vehicle/refund of the price of the vehicle with interest. It was further contended that the complainant did not examine any expert witness to prove the defects. It was further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal be set aside. 

11.       The learned Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant contended that the complainant purchased a TATA Indica Vista TDI Aqua car from the OP No.1 on 19.1.2009, for an amount of Rs.4,10,158/-. From day one, its fuel gauge was not working properly. The fuel meter never showed the quantum of diesel accurately and when actual quantity of diesel in the car was approximately 1-2 liters, at that time the fuel meter of the car showed the quantum of diesel, in the car either more than half tank or sometimes near about full tank. The complainant approached OP No.1 for the rectification of the abovesaid problem in the car on 28.1.2009 and made approximately 22 visits to it for the repair of his car but the problem could not be rectified. The complainant received a call from OP No.3 to bring the vehicle to OP No.1 on 19.8.2009. On that date, they replaced the fuel tank and fuel gauge but still the defect persisted. Due to this, the complainant suffered a lot of mental trauma and agony, as his car had stopped on the way a number of times.

12.       It is evident from the record that right from the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant approached the OPs so many times for the rectification of defect in the fuel gauge. In fact, in order to rectify the defect, OP No.1 changed various parts of the abovesaid vehicle, as is evident from the job cards. Inspite of that, the OPs were unable to rectify the defect. It is pertinent to mention here that on 10.8.2010, the learned Counsel for the appellant i.e. Hind Motors before advancing his arguments pointed out that the defect with regard to giving a wrong indication by the fuel gauge had been removed. However, the complainant denied this fact and stated that inspite of being fuel tank empty, the fuel gauge indicated the fuel tank containing half of the quantity. In order to ascertain the exact accuracy of the fuel gauge, this Commission sought a report of an expert from the Punjab Engineering College. As per report dated 25.5.2010 submitted by the expert, it     was     found    that     the     fuel     gauge    of    the    said    vehicle   was   not   working properly. The Counsel for OPs No.2 and 3 i.e. Tata Motors filed objections to the report submitted by the Panjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and contended that the Panjab Engineering College is not an appropriate lab, as defined under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act. He has enclosed a list of appropriate laboratories notified by the Government under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act.   But in our opinion, this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, is baseless, because this institution has a well equipped mechanical workshop and it is capable of testing any automobile to find out, whether there is any defect or not.

13.            Keeping in view the facts, circumstances, evidence on record and opinion of the expert, we are of the considered opinion that there is some major defect in the vehicle, due to which, the fuel gauge of the same could not be rectified by the OPs, inspite of the fact that it was taken to the workshop of the OPs, so many times. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion, that one more opportunity should be given to the manufacturer to rectify all the defects, in the vehicle, including the rectification of problem, in the fuel gauge, free of cost.

14.       In this view of the matter, both the appeals are dismissed with the modification, as under.

i)          The complainant is directed to handover the vehicle to the manufacturer (Tata Motors) through its dealer (Hind Motors) within 10 days of the receipt of a copy this order. On receipt of the vehicle, the manufacturer (Tata Motors) shall send the same, to its manufacturing unit/workshop for testing, and rectification of the defect in the same, free of cost, within 30 days from the date of handing over the car, by the complainant, to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.

ii)         The manufacturer (Tata Motors) shall make a standby arrangement by providing an alternative car of the same make to the complainant, till his car is not handed over to him, after the removal of defects.

iii)        In case of failure of the manufacturer to rectify the defects within the aforesaid period, both the OPs shall be liable to replace the defective vehicle with a brand new vehicle, without charging anything extra.

iv)        or both the OPs shall refund the total amount received from the complainant, within 60 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.12.2009 till realization. The remaining directions regarding compensation and cost of the District Forum shall remain undisturbed. 

15.     The parties are left to bear their own costs, in both the appeals.

16.     A copy of the order be placed in appeal No. 15 of 2010.

17.          Certified copies be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Pronounced.                                                                                  

19^th July, 2011.