Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/251/2013

K.Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motor Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Lawthirst Associates

16 Dec 2021

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Complaint Filed: 30.07.2013

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Reservation: 22.11.2021

                                                                                                                                                                Date of Order: 16.12.2021

                                                                                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 

Present:

 

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.251/2013

 

THURSDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

 Mr.K.Suresh Kumar,

S/o.K.Narashimulu,

No.30, Nattu Pillaiyar Koil Street,

Seven Wells, George Town,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                                                 .. Complainant.                                                                  

 

                                                      ..Versus..

1.The Manager, TATA MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED

    New No.52, Old No.37 &38,

    Asv Ramanas Tower 6th Floor,

    Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar,

    Chennai – 600 017.

 

2.The Manager, V.S.T MOTORS LIMITED,

    commercial Vehicle Dealer,

    Gove Building, 199 Anna Road,

    Chennai -600 002.                                                                      ..  Opposite parties.

******

Counsel for the complainant                            : M/s.Lawthirst Associates

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                   : M/s.Shivakumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party                : M/s.C.J.Shyamala

 

 

            On perusal of records and after having heard the arguments of the opposite party we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

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

 

            The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to change the vehicle of TATA VENTURE (MAXICAB) immediately and replace by any other successful model and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice and to pay a sum Rs.5,00,000/- towards compenation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked and written argument filed but oral argument not adduced. However written argument of the complainant is treated as oral argument.  While so, on the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit submitted as their evidence and no document was filed.

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

The complainant purchased a TATA VENTURE calss namely“MAXICAB“ on 30.08.2012 for Rs.5,16,456/- from the 2nd opposite party.  The above said motor vehicle was mal functioning within a months from the date of purchase. The complainant handed over the said vehicle to the 2nd opposite party to rectify the defects.  The complainant handed over his vehicle with the 2nd opposite party to change Oil seal, Grease AP3 for Chasis and cleaning Agent-D on 27.09.2012 for 1st free service and 2nd service was done on 10.11.2012.  Thereafter on 03.12.2012, 21.03.2013, 03.05.2013, 04.05.2013, 27.05.2013, 07.06.2013 and 18.06.2013 the complainant handed over the vehicle to receity the defect in the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party.  The complainant’s vehicle was in the possession of the 2nd opposite party for long days in the name of service and therefore it has got  manufacturing defect.  Hence this complaint is filed. 

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

 

It is submitted whatever complaint raised by the complainant were running complaint and retro fitments, which required to be attended for extensive usage and improper maintenance of the vehicle.  There is no expert opinion or reports from an appropriate laboratory as such vehicle has got a manufacturing defects.  The problem raised by the complainant were attended to the satisfaction of the complainant and there exists no outstanding issue in the vehicle.  Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.

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

 

It is submitted that the complainant is seeking replacement of the said vehicle with a new vehicle on the premise that the said vehicle suffers from a manufacturing defects.  It is submitted that every defect in the vehicle cannot be termed as an inherent manufacturing defect.  Further unless such defect is of serious nature which either renders a vehicle unfit or unsafe for use would it warrant or call for replacement. In the instant case upon purchasing the said vehicle and the same was brough the 2nd opposite party for service at which points in time repairs had been carried out and spares that were covered under the warranty were replaced without any cost to and to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant being satisfied with the repairs that had been carried out had taken delivery of the said vehicle. Till date the vehicle is in the complainant’s possession and commercially being exploited by him.  The complainant has not established that the vehicle suffers from any serious inherent manufacturing defect which has rendered it incapable of being put to use or it is otherwise unsafe.  In the light of the facts herein able to  set out, it would be apparent, that the said vehicle does not suffer from an inherent manufacturing defect as alleged and consequently, the relief sought for by the complainant would per se not be maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6 .The points for consideration are:-

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

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

3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

7 . Point No.1:-

 

On perusal of records it is found that the complainant’s vehicle was handled by the 2nd opposite party on nine occassions from 27.09.2012 to 18.06.2013.  The first 2 occassions are free services and remaining 7 occassions are the vehicle was handed over for service to do some repairs. Within short period that is from 03.12.2012 to 18.06.2013  the vehicle has got repaired seven times and therefore the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the vehicle has got manufacturing defects.  On persual of Ex.A4 to Ex.A8  expect the defect clutch and the remaining repairs are minor repairs.  As stated by the 1^st opposite party that the complaint are runnings complaints and retro fitments, which required to be attended for extensive usage and improper maintenance of the vehicle. 

8. Further it is specifically noticed during the last service that is on 28.06.2013 the said vehicle reported running at 24113 kms with the complaint of clutch fails to disengage and poor pick-up,  when idle speed device checked and adjusted on free service basis.  The complainant purchased the above said vehicle on 13.08.2012 and  within short period he used his vehicle 24113kms would prove that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition.  The complainant has not specifally stated in respect of the defects found in his vehicle. On perusal of records all the repairs are running repairs. Further there is no evidence to show that the vehicle has got manufacturing defects.  Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

9. Point Nos.2 & 3:-

 

We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in this complaint.  Accordingly point Nos.2 &3 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 16^th day of December 2021.

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	30.08.2012	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A2	12.09.2012	Tata AIG Insurance	Xerox
Ex.A3	13.09.2013	RC Book of TATA venture.	Xerox
Ex.A4	27.09.2012	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A5	10.11.2012	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A6	03.12.2012	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A7	21.03.2013	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A8	03.05.2013	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A9	04.05.2013	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A10	27.05.2013	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A11	07.06.2013	Tax Invoice	Xerox
Ex.A12	29.06.2013	Legal notice issued to the opposite parties	Xerox
Ex.A13	03.07.2013	Acknowledgement card	Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

VINODH KUMAR                                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN

         MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT