BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate son of Sh.Babu Lal Sinhal, R/o H.No.75, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh. 

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.  Tata automobiles, Regional Office, SCO No.170/71/72, Ist Floor, Sector 17(C), Chandigarh  U.T.

2.  M/s. Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh U.T.

3.  M/s. Hind Motors, Off: 15, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.Sharad Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.P.K.Kukreja, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP No.2.

Ms.Mamta B. Jain, Av. for OP No.3.

PER SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, the complainant on 26.7.2007 had purchased a Tata Safari vehicle, manufactured by OP-1, from OP No.3 an authorized dealer and got it registered vide Regd. No.CH-04-A-7087.  As stated, the vehicle at the time of purchase, was carrying guarantee for a period of 18 months.  The said vehicle started giving trouble from the very beginning, as the engine could not accelerate and remained idle even after starting the same so it was taken to OP No.3-Hind Motors many times but when the complainant found that OP No.3 was not able to rectify the problems/defects, he took it to OP No.2 for necessary repairs.  The OP No.2 detected a problem in the crank shaft gear of the vehicle  and changed it with new one free of cost being under the period of warranty.  However, the vehicle still was giving trouble, therefore, complainant had to take the vehicle to OP No.2 again, who again changed the crank shaft gear.  Besides this, OP No.2 also changed the ECU of the vehicle, when it had run 34821 K.Ms., free of cost.  The vehicle ran well for about 6 months but thereafter, it again gave problem when complainant was on his way to Faridabad.  As such, the vehicle was got checked at Faridabad at Tayal Motors, an authorized dealer, who suggested that the ECU of the vehicle requires replacement.  However, the complainant in order to run the vehicle temporarily, got the radiator fan connected directly with the battery.   The vehicle was again taken to OP No.2, who also told that the ECU needs replacement but refused to change it free of cost saying that the warranty had expired after 18 months from the date of purchase inspite of bringing to their notice that this part carried warranty upto 50,000 kms. and even otherwise they have changed it only on 19.12.2008 and after that the vehicle had run only 14,000 KMs.  They were requested many times to change the said part but they refused to replace it free of cost.  An e-mail in this respect was sent to the CEO of OP No.2 but to no effect.  Ultimately, a legal notice was sent but it was not replied to.  It is stated that vehicle in question was having inherent defect as a result of which two times, different parts were changed by OP No.2.  Alleging the above acts of OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant prayed that the OPs be directed to change the vehicle or in alternative to change the ECU which admittedly is defective, pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lacs for harassment besides cost of battery and litigation charges.

2]             OP No.1 in their reply while admitting the sale of the vehicle denied that the vehicle was suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect.  It is admitted that complainant has taken his vehicle to OP No.2 for service.  However, OP No.2 never suggested that crank shaft gear was causing problem, but for the entire satisfaction of the complainant, the timing belt was replaced, fuel injection pump was replaced and assy. Cam shaft gear and drive gear were replaced under warranty on free of cost basis.  It is denied that OP No.2 replaced the crank shaft on 19.12.2008.  It is also denied that on 19.12.2008 the ECU was replaced by OP No.2. The Invoice dated 19.12.2008 depicts that apart from minor services and normal maintenance, the OP No.2 loaded ECU with calibration + F Logic and the said job was carried out under warranty.   It is also submitted that the warranty of the vehicle in question had already been expired on 25.1.2009 and hence there was no question of any replacement of parts under warranty.  All other allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint. 

3]             The OP No.2 has taken similar pleas/assertions as has been taken by OP No.1 in their reply, which have already been mentioned in the foregoing para.   

4]             OP No.3 filed reply and admitted the sale of the vehicle.  It is stated that the complainant visited them for the first schedule free service on 21.9.2007 which was done.  It is denied that there was any defect in the vehicle on that date, as alleged by the complainant.  Rest of the allegations of the complainant have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

7]             The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainant having been purchased one new Tata Safari vehicle bearing Regd. No.CH-04-A-7087, manufactured by OP No.1, from OP No.3, an authorized dealer, on 26.7.2007 which carried warranty of 18 months, have all been admitted.

8]             The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle, immediately after its purchase from OP No.3, had started giving trouble as the engine could not accelerate and remained idle even after starting the same.  As such, he took the vehicle to OP No.3 i.e. Hind Motors a number of times but the defect in the vehicle continued and the same was not removed. Consequently, the vehicle was taken by the complainant to OP No.2 i.e. M/s. Joshi Autozone for removal of the defect and as per the complainant, OPNO.2 changed the crank shaft gear of the vehicle with new one free of cost.  The complainant further says that the same crank shaft gear was replaced by OP No.2 again for the second time and in addition, the ECU of the vehicle had also been replaced at 34821 K.Ms. and that too free of cost.  The vehicle in question remained quite well and working for the next 6 months but thereafter it again started giving trouble.  The vehicle was again taken to OP No.2 by the complainant for changing the ECU as the same had once more become defective but OP No.2 refused to change the same free of cost.  Finally, the complainant says that till today the vehicle has not been functioning properly and giving trouble in its functioning time and again. 

9]             OP No.1, who is the manufacturer of Tata Safari vehicle, purchased by the complainant, in their reply have admitted that the complainant had taken his vehicle to OP No.2 for service.  OP No.1 says that there was no defect in the Crank Shaft Gear but since the complainant insisted for its replacement, the same was done by replacing the timing belt, fuel injection pump and assy. Cam shaft gear and drive gear free of cost.  It was done only to satisfy the complainant.  It was wrong to suggest that on 19.12.2008 the entire ECU was replaced by OP No.2.  The only thing, which was done by OpNo.2 on 19.12.2008 was that apart from normal service and maintenance job, OP No.2 had loaded ECU with calibration + F Logic and the said job was done under warranty.  Nothing was charged from the complainant for that.  The warranty period of the vehicle expired on 25.1.2009 and therefore, there was no question of replacing any part under warranty free of cost after the said date. 

10]            OP No.2 has also made almost similar pleadings and assertions as have been taken by OP No.1.

11]            On the same lines, OP No.3, which is the dealer of Tata Safari Vehicle and who had sold the vehicle to the complainant has stated that the complainant visited them for the first scheduled free service on 21.9.2007 but no defect was found in the vehicle on that date as alleged by the complainant and thereafter the complainant did not go to them.

12]            In its written statement/reply the OP No.1 has stated that from the service history of the vehicle, it was evident that the complainant had extensively used the vehicle without feeling any problem.  Further, the complainant has concealed the material fact from the Forum that the vehicle in question had met with an accident after covering a distance of 33681 KMs. And just before 19.12.2008 when the ECU of the vehicle was repaired and not replaced as alleged by OP No.2.

13]            At the time of arguments when the complainant was confronted with the factum of accident as alleged by the OPs, he could not rebut the averments of the OPs.

14]            It is also true that the Tata Safari vehicle of the complainant has already done more than 60000 KMs by now as per the record of performance of the said vehicle.  It is also true that as and when the vehicle was taken to the authorized service centre, the parts were replaced free of cost and also necessary service/maintenance job was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, which has been corroborated by the records on the file.

15]            The allegation of the complainant is that the vehicle is suffering from an inherent manufacturing defect right from the date of its purchase by him.  But in support of his allegations, he has not attached even an iota of proof or any laboratory report or any other expert opinion from the competent Automobiles Research Association or an approved Automobile Engineer/Engineering Institute. It is also not understood as to how could a vehicle run for more than 60000 KMs. If it was suffering from an inherent manufacturing defect.  The complainant has not been able to explain these facts.

16]            In the written arguments submitted by OP No.1 in support of its case, it has cited an authority titled as Tata Motors Limited vs. Khushal Singh etc., R.P.No.1163 of 2005, decided on 21.8.2009 by the Hon’ble National Commission.     

17]            In the given case, the complainant Khushal Singh has purchased a Tata Indica DLE Car from Hind Motor manufactured by Tata Motor for Rs.2,89,512/-.  He had alleged certain defects in the car like entering of rain water inside the car even when it was not being driven, the leakage of oil in the car, unusual noise from the engine, wheel rims touching other parts and doors not functioning properly etc.  The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund the price of the car besides paying compensation and cost of litigation.  The matter went to the State Commission, which also confirmed the order of the District while making small modification in the order.  But finally when the matter went to the Hon’ble National Commission where it was observed that there was no liability of the manufacturer after the expiry of the warranty period.  Further, the Hon’ble National Commission observed that there is no expert evidence on record supported by any affidavit about the vehicle having any manufacturing defect.  In that case also, the vehicle had met with an accident on 16.8.2000, the claim had been paid by the insurance company and the Hon’ble National Commission said that when the vehicle was brought to the workshop after the date of accident alleging certain defects, the same could not be related to any manufacturing defect.  On this ground, the Hon’ble National Commission set-aside the orders passed by the both the Fora below. 

18]            In the present case too, the complainant had concealed the very vital and material fact of accident of the vehicle, which had clearly occurred before 19.12.2008 when the vehicle was brought to the workshop for certain repairs and replacement of parts.  Obviously the car was brought to the OPs for accidental repairs and there was no question of the OPs doing various jobs under terms &conditions of warranty.

19]            In the warranty terms & conditions issued by OP in favour of the complainant, at Page No.10 of the Customer Manual, it is clearly mentioned that the warranty shall be limited to 18 months or 50,000 kms. whichever occurs earlier.  The warranty shall also not apply if the vehicle had met with an accident.  The terms & conditions as listed in the warranty are clearly binding on both the parties.

20]            In the present case, not only the period of 18 months had since expired but also since the vehicle had met with an accident before 1912.2008, the warranty had become null and void from the date of accident.  Therefore, the complainant cannot claim any benefits under the warranty on the date of filing the complaint i.e. 13.9.2009.

21]            All above detailed discussion shows that the complainant himself has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  He has not only concealed the fact of the vehicle having met with an accident before 19.12.2008 but also several other facts in respect of actual repairs/replacements done by the OPs.  These have not been correctly stated in the complaint and false allegations have been made against OPs to suit his own requirements.  As per one of the statements made by the complainant, the entire ECU was replaced by the OPs whereas as per the OPs ECU was only repaired and loaded with Calibration + F Logic and not replaced in entirety. 

22]            Keeping in view the above comprehence analysis of the case, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the present complaint and it deserves rejection as the complainant has not been able to prove his case to any extent against the OPs.  We, therefore, dismiss this complaint.  However, the respective parties are left to bear their own costs.

23]            Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th July, 2010                                                        

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                        (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

‘Om’