In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.239/2010.
1) Natreon, Inc. (Branch Office, India),
CL-18A, Sector-II, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Tata Motors Limited, Marketing & Customer Support,
Passenger Car Business Unit,
One Forbes, 5th Floor, Dr. V.B. Gamdhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400023.
Also at 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700071.
2) R.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd,
Regent Sagar, VIP Road, Raghunathput, Kolkata-700059.
And also 8/1, Lalbazar Street, 1st Floor, Room no. 11, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 27 Dated 26-11-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased one TATA Indigo CS / LX car from R.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as o.p. no.2) who is the dealer of TATA Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as o.p. no.1). O.p. no.1 is the manufacturer of the said car. The complainant booked the said car for using the same by the Director of the company for his personal use on 26.2.10 and took delivery on 31.3.10. After delivery of the said car the complainant noticed that the door bit of both sides were not pasted properly and the bonnet of the car was opened smoothly and for that reason showroom issued an internal memo. On 1.4.10 the complainant noticed that the TATA’s logo in front of the car was broken and for that reason complainant communicated with o.p. no.2. As per advice of o.p. no.2 on 6.4.10 complainant went to Rajarjhat Workshop for repairing the same. The workshop service adviser, Mr. Bhaskar Ghosal that there was a dentmark on the inside of the front bumper although there was no hair crack / scratch on the outside of the front bumper and it was told to the complainant that the car was damaged somehow internally. On 9.4.10 the complainant went to VIP Showroom of o.p. to discuss the matter and as per their advice the complainant went to Kamarhati Showroom. The personnel of Kamarhati Showroom told the complainant that the damage occurred before fitting of the front number plate. As per o.p’s advice complainant met several personnel of o.ps. and ultimately on 16.4.10 complainant lodged a complaint. So the complainant demanded for replacement of the car as he has paid more Rs.4 lakhs for purchase of a brand new car. Complainant also informed the police. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant due to two major reasons – (1) the car in question had inherent manufacturing defects and (2) the complainant was provided with a car which had previously met with an accident. Therefore complainant prayed for replacement of defective car being no.WB-06B-0085 and engine no.4751DT14AZYP04895 by a new defect free one and compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The matter was fixed ex parte as against o.p. no.2 as they did not appear before the Forum though the notice was duly served upon them. O.p. no.1 entered in the case and filed w/v denying all material allegation interalia the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant has purchased the car in question for business purpose and that was admitted in para 4 of the complaint. So the car has been used extensively for commercial activity. They also cited the case H Vasanth Kumar vs M/s Ford India Ltd. (First Appeal No.490 of 2004). They also alleged that the complainant has filed this baseless complaint for manufacturing defects as the Sec 13(1)(C) of C.P. Act, 1986 states as “Where the complaint alleges a defect in goods, which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, ……”. At the time of argument ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 argued that there is no whisper that the damage has been done prior to or after the purchase. It is not also mentioned in the complaint clearly that what are the defects. Therefore o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that the car in question was purchased by the complainant. But it is not clear that the defects were observed by the complainants on which date. The complainant has alleged that there are internal defects inside the car. But the complainant could not substantiate that the internal defects were there before purchase and the o.p.1 sold the car with the internal defects.. Though there is no external scratch it is not proved that the internal defects were there before purchase. It is unnatural that complainant has observed that there is no logo of TATA Company after a long period of one month. The defects are mentioned in the complaint are not specific and moreover, there is no expert report. Hence, the complainant cannot substantiate his case and therefore, the complaint fails.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest against o.p.1 and exparte against o.p.2.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
