Orissa

Jajapur

CC/27/2021

Jyoti Sharma,Proprietor of Future Green Motor Services. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LIMITED. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2021

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:    1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                                      Dated the 9th day of December ,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.27 of 2021

Jyoti Sharma Proprietor of Future Green Motor services   

FLT-301,Home Town Apartment ,Chorda Chowk ,

Jajpur Road,  Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                           …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                   (Versus)

TATA MOTORS LIMITED, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street

Mumbai, MH-400001

                                                                                                               ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                           

For the Complainant:                      Self

For the Opp.Party:                          Sri R.K.Ghadei, Sri S.K.Samal,  Advocates.

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                    Date of order:  09.12.2021

MISS  SMITA  RAY,  MEMBER (W).                                                  

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.p alleging negligence and unfair Trade Practice due to non providing right and proper service which is coming within purview of deficiency in service .

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner had purchased a Tata Tigor X M+ vehicle paying Rs.1200000/- on 16.11.20  towards cost of the vehicle and the said vehicle was delivered on 18^th November,2020 though booking was done on 29^th October.2020. It is alleged by the petitioner that though there was sufficient time to deliver the vehicle after proper checking but after receipt of the vehicle it is observed that the vehicle is taking 14 to 15 hours only for 50% charging or running only 74 K.M. In this context it is stated by the petitioner that on 20.11.20 while she was returning from Tata Steel due to having 25% charging in the vehicle faced inconvience due to break down of the vehicle in the busy traffic area. Accordingly the petitioner lodged complaint to the customer care on 21^st November ,20 bearing complaint No.14630 4862541 for compensation which was denied by O.P. Further pick up the vehicle on 21^st November to the dealer ( Dion motors) and returned the vehicle on 27^th as well as collected Rs.700/- i.e Toll Rs.200/-+ driver Rs.500/- towards delivery charge which is illegal. More over the vehicle is taking one hour to start  at the time the customer was inside the car in the result of which my client’s company image has been lost/ damaged. It is also not out of place to clarify that at present I am paying bank’s interest and driver’s salary and due to such negligent activity of O.P the petitioner has suffered a lot. It is also pertinent to clarify that the petitioner purchased the warranty by spending her hard earned money but the O.P had lured petitioner by giving false assurance . At present the vehicle is not working properly as the O.P has not given proper service for which the petitioner has suffered mental agony which is coming within the purview of deficiency in service. Due to non receipt of proper service for repairing the vehicle the petitioner though has intimated the O.P over telephone and mail but the O.P without taking any action has remained silent. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the petitioner and provide the petitioner either with the purchased products or  refund the purchased amount which has been paid to the O.P  as well as award Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and cost of litigation.

            After receipt of the notice the O.P appeared and filed the written version taking the stand that the O.P being the manufacturer or commercial and private vehicle  after proper checking is dispatched  to the authorized dealer to sale the same to the intending persons on “ principal to principal basis” . The petitioner has purchased the alleged car from Dion Automobiles (p) Ltd  who is the authorized dealer or O.P. Accordingly the O.P can not be liable if any default or non compliance on the part of the dealer. Moreover there is no privity of contract in between the petitioner and O.P from the date of purchasing the car till filing of the present dispute. The petitioner also has not filed any independent/ approved expert report stating that the alleged car suffers from manufacturing defect.

            So far as the allegation of the petitioner in respect of the alleged car is concerned  it is humbly submit that the petitioner has purchased the alleged car on 13.10.20 . The petitioner alleged that the car being an electric car was slow charging . It is pertinent to clarify that  the issue has resolved by replacing DC-DC charger by the authorized service team and after repair as per quest of the petitioner  the alleged car was delivered at the resident of the petitioner as well as received Rs.700/-  towards Toll charge Rs.200/- and driver feee Rs.500/- .At present the car is road worthy condition . After replacement of DC-DC charger the alleged car was reported to authorized service station for two times and necessary free service was also provided to the alleged car. Subsequently the alleged car has covered 8244 KM as on 27^th February,2021. The car was purchased in the month of October-2020. The alleged car will not be able to ply 8244 Km within the short period in case the car suffers from manufacturing defects. In view of the above clarification the dispute is liable to be dismissed against the O.p having no deficiency in service.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from both the sides and perused the record and documents filed by both the parties. After perusal of the record we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation below:-

1.Admittedly the petitioner has purchased the above cited alleged vehicle from Dion Automobiles Pvt ltd who is the authorized dealer of O.P ( Tata motors) .As such it was the duty of the petitioner to implead Dion Automobiles as necessary party in respect of his allegation.

2.Similarly from the date of purchase of the alleged vehicle by the petitioner till filing of the present dispute the O.p was not in the picture so far as the sale   transaction   is concerned . As such the dispute is liable to be dismissed against the O>P in view of the observation of Hon’ble State Commission Kerala reported in 2005-CTJ-798-Kerala and 2005-CTJ-484-N.C

3. As regards defects of the car as the petitioner has not produced any independent expert report regarding manufacturing defects the petitioner is not entitled either replacement of car or refund of money in view of Hon’ble Supreme court observation reported in 2011(1) CLT-491-SC since after receipt of the allegation the authorized service team has changed DC-DC charger under warranty.

4. Like wise it is stated by O.P that after manufacturing the alleged car the same has been dispatched to the authorized dealer i.e Dion Auto mobiles for sell on “ Principal to principal basis “ for which the O.P can not be liable for default or negligence committed by the dealer in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 1995(2) CLT-508-SC

5.As regards the condition of warranty it provides replacement parts but not car as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2000(2)CLT-150-SC.  Accordingly in the present case the DC-DC charger has been replaced by the authorized service term under warranty .

6. More over regarding payment of Rs.700/- by the petitioner it is our considered view the petitioner has not impleaded Dion Automobiles as necessary party in the present dispute who is the necessary party to give his reply to this effect.  Hence this order.

                                                O R D E R

            In view of the above observation from our side the dispute is dismissed  against the O.P. While dismissing the dispute we are in the opinion that the petitioner may file 2^nd dispute within the period of limitation i.e 30 days impleading Dion Automobiles as necessary party if he so likes. No  cost.

                    This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9th day of  December,2021. under my hand and seal of the Commission .