Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/166/2013

KRISHNA ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, K. SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA ACCESS LIMITED, MANAGING DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

J. RANJANI DEVI

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

 

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

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL       … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.166 of 2013

(Against the Order, dated 24.09.2012, in C.C. No.477 of 2010, on the file of  the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                                    

                             Orders pronounced on: 24.03.2023

 

M/s.Krishna Energy

     Private Limited,

88/3, Mahakalamman Koil St.,

Coimbatore 641 001, rep.

by its Power of                             

Attorney Holder K.Suresh Kumar.  .. Appellant/Complainant

 

vs.

 

M/s.Tata Access Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

27-C, Race Course Road,

Coimbatore 18.

 

2. M/s. Tata Motors,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Marketing and Customer Support,

Passenger Car Business Unit,

One Forbes, 5^th Floor,

Dr.V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort,

Mumbai 400 023.                         … Respondents/OPs

 

             For Appellant           :  M/s.V.Balaji

             For Respondent No.1:  M/s.C.Thomas

             For Respondent No.2:  M/s.Shivakumar &

                                                             Suresh.

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 26.12.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             Aggrieved by the order, dated 24.09.2012, passed in C.C. No.477 of 2010, by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, partly allowing the complaint without awarding the compensation and damages as sought for by him, the complainant has come up with the present First Appeal.

 

             2.     Briefly, it is the case of the appellant/complainant that on 12.04.2010, they purchased a TATA Safari Car for a sum of Rs.9,04,165/- from the 1^st OP, who is the Authorized Dealer of the Manufacturer/2^nd OP. After registration formalities, the said Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-66-A-9870 was delivered to the complainant by the 1^st OP at 7 PM on the same date. Even at the very first time of taking delivery, the vehicle had clutch and gear problems, hence, on the very next day, it was handed over to the 1^st OP, who delivered it after 5 days stating that the defects had been rectified.  However, the defects remained as such contrary to the statement of the 1^st OP, whereupon, the vehicle was again handed over to the said OP on 23.04.2010 for the defect – ‘gear shifting and clutch tight’.  Thereafter, the vehicle was delivered by stating that the defects were corrected under warranty, however, the vehicle had the same issues.  When the complainant pointed out the same to the 1^st OP, he was informed that the vehicle had just covered 47 Kms. and it has to cover 1500 Kms. and only thereupon, the defects could be found out during the 1^st service for proper rectification.  However, even after the 1^st service done upon the vehicle covering 1945 Kms, the problem of non-engaging of the 1^st gear was still there which reflected a clear manufacturing defect on the part of the 2^nd respondent.  Hence, the complainant once again handed over the vehicle to the 1^st OP on 11.05.2010 and addressed the officials of the said OP for redressal of the grievance, but to his shock, he was answered in a rude manner, thereby, the 1^st OP has committed serious service deficiency.  The complainant issued to the OPs a legal notice, dated 14.06.2010, for which, the 2^nd OP had not even bothered to reply while the 1^st OP sent a reply with false allegations.  Hence, he filed the complaint, seeking the District Forum to direct the OPs to replace the defective vehicle with a new vehicle of the same type, free of any defect, or else, to direct reimbursement of Rs.9,04,165/- paid towards the cost of the said vehicle and further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs.6 lakh towards damages for usage of another car and for the mental agony caused due to the service deficiency committed by the OPs, besides costs of the proceedings.

 

             3. In their written version, among other things, the 1^st OP states that, it was after the test driving, the complainant had exercised his discretion to purchase the model in question; that the vehicle neither had any gear issue nor clutch problem which factum was repeatedly explained to the complainant; that every time the vehicle was entrusted with them, it was well attended; that the service & repairing was done free of cost; that, since the complainant repeatedly complained about the gear issue, this OP changed the entire clutch cover assembly and, despite the same, the complainant claimed that it is not functioning upto his satisfaction; that the vehicle would not have covered 2000 Kms. if really there had been any serious problem therein; that there is no defect in the car which is in a sound condition, hence, the questions of replacement, suffering mental agony and usage of another car do not arise at all; and that the complaint, which is devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

 

    4. The 2^nd OP resisted the complaint by filing a lengthy version and the main points highlighted therein are  that the issues faced by the complainant are actually in view of improper operation of the clutch & gear and not due to any manufacturing defect in the vehicle; that there were instances of maintenance and operational faults noticed by the OPs during both free and paid servicing; that the complainant was advised to follow the instructions given in the Owner’s Service Book & Manual for smooth and maximum performance of the Utility Vehicle; that when the gear shifting has to be done in a gap of 2-3 seconds after the clutch is fully pressed, the complainant is in the habit of immediate shifting of the gear in parallel with clutch operation, which has led to the alleged problems in the clutch & gear operations; that the vehicle in question has a new type of clutch pedal which has to be pressed fully to enable the sensor to react and resultantly engage the gear, but, the complainant is not familiar with the new gear shifting mechanism and operated it like the old model and hence, the said fact was duly communicated to him during his visits to the workshop and this was also explained in the reply sent by the 1^st OP; that he was requested to take delivery of the vehicle, however, he is not ready to take back it; and that the complainant has failed to prove any cause of action or prima facie case against this OP, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as this OP is concerned.

            

       5. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant filed 10 documents as Exs.A1 to A10, however, the OPs have not filed any document. The Inspection Report filed by the Expert/Engineer was marked as Ex.C1.  The District Forum, by the impugned order, dated 24.09.2012, while dismissing the complaint as against the 2^nd OP, held that there is no deficiency in service and that the complainant is not entitled to compensation, and ultimately allowed the complaint in part with a direction to the 1^st OP to correct the play in the clutch pedal of the vehicle in question free of cost and return it to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of the order.  Not being satisfied with such direction and by projecting a grievance that the District Forum ought to have allowed his claim in its entirety, the complainant has come up with the present appeal. 

 

             6. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant states that, as could be seen from Ex.C1, it is clear that the vehicle had defects and further, it is lying with the 1^st OP from 11.05.2010 onwards;  in such circumstances, both the respondents/OPs may be directed to hand over the vehicle, after rectification of all defects, in a perfect road-worthy condition which shall  be duly certified by an independent technical expert and, if it is not in a road-worthy condition, the OPs may be directed to refund the price of the vehicle as well as the sum paid towards life-tax along with 12% interest and also to pay a reasonable compensation as well as costs.

 

7. Vehemently opposing the above submissions, learned counsels for the OPs/respondents state in unison that, in the light of the factual findings rendered by the forum below to the effect that there is no service deficiency involved in this case and that no case is made out to order any compensation,  the complainant cannot expect anything more beyond what was justly allowed in the impugned order.  Thus, they sought for dismissal of the appeal.

 

   8. Be that as it may, the only plea of the appellant is to send the vehicle for inspection by an Expert to certify about its road-worthiness and, in that regard, he has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in C.N.Anantharam vs. Fiat India Ltd. (IV-2010-CPJ-56), where, a direction was issued for getting the opinion of an independent expert regarding the existence or otherwise of any inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle.

     We are of the view that the said case law cannot be applied here, for the reason that the vehicle in question has been in the custody of the 1^st OP from 2010 onwards and now, almost 12 long years have lapsed.   In a case of this background, the complainant ought to have made a request of this nature before the District Forum itself at the earliest point of time.   For the sake of argument, even if we accept the plea to send the vehicle for inspection & report by the expert, no useful purpose would be served at this distant point of time.  Thus, we have no other option except to reject the appellant’s plea for modifying the impugned order.

9. In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed, by confirming the order, dated 24.09.2012, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.477 of 2010.

    

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.