BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.07 of 2014

Date of Instt. 08.1.2014

Date of Decision :15.12.2014

Anmol Rattan Khanna aged about 33 years son of Swami Dayal Khanna, R/o House No.68, Village Bilron, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody, Street Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.

2. Kosmo Vehicle Private Limited, Shri Ram Plaza Building, Opposite Adarh Nagar Park, Mahavir Marg, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.RK Nanada Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Attri Adv., counsel for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Ashok Khanna Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased diesel Indigo CS LS bearing Chasis No.MAT607146CWB10774, Engine No. 475IDT148XY09834, registration No.PB-07-AG-4750 vide the invoice dated 28.6.2012 for the valuable consideration and the opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the said car. Within few days after the purchase of the car the complainant noticed that there is a defect in the engine of the vehicle and the engine creates noise in its running condition. The noise coming out of the engine always put an apprehension in the mind of the complainant that the vehicle's engine would seize anywhere and the complaint in this respect was made to the opposite party No.2 on numerous occasions. During the service of the vehicle at the workshop of opposite party No.2 on 8.7.2012, secondly with the Cargo Motors Private Limited, Nawanshahr on 27.7.2012, thirdly on 21.8.2012 and fourthly on 25.8.2012 the matter was brought into the notice of the opposite parties and every time the opposite party No.2 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. But the defect was neither detected nor was removed. It deserves mention that the complainant visited the opposite party on numerous occasions on account of the defect in the engine but the opposite party did not pay any attention to same. On 30.8.2012 the complainant had gone to Agra in the vehicle in question. Before departing, he contacted the opposite party No.2 so as to know about the defect in the vehicle in question and that whether it is safe to drive the vehicle on long drive. The opposite party assured that there is no manufacturing defect in the engine and the noise will be muted after the running of the vehicle. Believing on the words of opposite party No.2, the complainant drove the vehicle on long drive and had gone to Uttar Pradesh in the said vehicle. On 30.8.2012 when the vehicle was on its way and reached 250 KMs behind Agra the noise developed in the engine of the vehicle and the engine seized and it was late night hours. The complainant felt much disturbed as he was with his family and the place was deserted and lone one. The complainant then called at the toll free number of the Tata Motors which toed the vehicle in question to Siyaram Motors Private Limited, Workshop, B-16, Sikandra Site A, NH-2, Agra where the vehicle in question was repaired. But even though the noise coming out of the engine was not removed, the said workshop advised the complainant that it is a manufacturing defect and he should talk to the concern authorized dealer for the same. The complainant on return from Agra again contacted opposite party No.2 on 9.9.2012 for the redressal of his grievance but he again remained unheard and till date the defect has not been removed. Due to the defect i.e manufacturing defect in the engine the complainant avoid driving it on long drive and the utility of the vehicle is not being enjoyed by him and his family members. The vehicle is in guarantee period and the vehicle requires replacement. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to deliver him new car in lieu of the vehicle in question or in the alternative pay the price of the vehicle alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In its written reply, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the vehicle in question has been purchased for commercial purposes and even there is no specific averments of complainant that the vehicle in question has purely been purchased for livelihood. Thus, the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties under the Act. It is denied that within few days, the complainant noticed that there is a defect in the engine of the vehicle. The vehicle has covered more than 1,10,000 KMs, thus, the allegation of the complainant that the engine was defective since beginning can not be relied upon. The complainant has not mentioned the dates and visit when he approached opposite party No.2 with his alleged complaint. The complainant is making bald and vague allegation without any substance or documentary proof. As per records, maintained by this answering opposite party, it is submitted that the vehicle was brought on 8.7.2012 at the workshop of opposite party No.1 for Ist free service at 1389 Kms and the complainant did not report any complaint of engine noise level high. On 27.7.2012, the vehicle was again brought for 2nd free service at 4968 KMs. At that time also, the complainant did not report any complaint in the vehicle in question. On 21.8.2012, the vehicle was brought at 10231 Kms for availing 3rd free service. At that time, the complainant reported the complaint of vehicle pulls to one side and no such complaint of engine noise level high was reported. On 25.8.2012, the vehicle was reported at the workshop of opposite party No.2 at 11051 with the complaint of engine noise level high. At that time, necessary repairs were carried out and the vehicle has delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. However, as per record, maintained by this answering opposite party, the vehicle was brought at Siyaram Motors, Agra at 12271 Kms. At that time, timing belt was replaced under warranty and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant to his entire satisfaction. It is vehemently denied that Siyaram Motors has told the complainant that there is any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not impleaded Siyaram Motors as a party in the present dispute. The complainant is leveling false allegations, which itself proves that the complainant alleged manufacturing defect in the engine on 30.8.2012, then why the complainant has waited till January 2014 to file the present complaint and how, the vehicle has covered more than 1,10,000 KMs within a mere span of 20 months. It is pertinent to mention herein that the complainant has brought the vehicle in question lastly on 28.2.2014 at 110921 KMs for paid service and at that time, the complainant has not reported any complaint in the vehicle in question. Thus, it is clear that there is no defect in the vehicle in question and the complainant has filed this frivolous complaint after expiry of warranty period to gain illegal and undue benefits at the costs of opposite parties. It is submitted that the answering opposite party has provided warranty on the vehicle in question for 75000 Kms or 24 months, whichever occurs earlier. The complainant has not disclosed the aforesaid fact before this Forum and thus, approached this Forum with unclean hands. It is vehemently denied that due to the defect, the complainant avoided driving the vehicle and could not enjoy the use of the vehicle. The vehicle has covered more than 1,10,000 Kms and the complainant is alleging non-usage of vehicle due to defect. The present complaint is nothing but an afterthought attempt to gain illegal and undue benefits. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply opposite party No.2 denied the material averments of the complainant and pleaded that there is no defect in the engine of the vehicle in question.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 and closed evidence. Evidence of opposite party No.2 was closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant. He contended that while going to Agra the engine of the vehicle seized and it was toed to the workshop at Agra where it was repaired but even then the noise coming out of the engine was not removed. He further contended that right from the start there was high noise in the engine of the vehicle. He further contended that despite of making repeated complaints the opposite parties failed to remove the defect. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and it has already run more than 1,10,921 KMs as on 28.2.2014. He further contended that the complainant never complained of noise in the engine when the car was brought to the workshop for free service. He further contended that whenever any minor complaint was made, same was attended to and car was repaired free of cost as per terms and conditions of the warranty. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The complainant moved an application for directing the opposite party No.2 to produce the record till January 2014. On the application of the complainant, the opposite parties produced complete services history of the car in question which is on record. The present complaint was filed on 6.1.2014 and as per services history of the car in question the car has already covered 88482 KMs on 7.12.2013. The warranty was for two years or 75000 Kms whichever is earlier. So before filing of the present complaint the car has already covered 88482 KMs. So present complaint has been filed after expiry of warranty period. As per service history, the car has covered 1,10,921 Kms till 28.2.2014. The car was purchased on 28.6.2012. So it has already run for 1,10,921 Kms within a span of about 20 months. A car which has covered a distance of 1,10,921 KMs within a period of 20 months can not be said to have any manufacturing defect. In case the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect in the car, it would not have covered 1,10,921 KMs during a period of about 20 months. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the car in question. From the services history of the car in question it is evident that whenever the car was taken to the workshop or service station for free service or repair, the same was done. The complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defect in the car in question or any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.12.2014 Member President