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

========

Chetan Gill son of Sh. Rajwant Singh Gill, aged 31 years, resident of House No.103, Phase-7, Mohali.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.        Tata Motors Limited, through its Chairman, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001.

2.        Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, 5^th Floor, 1 Forbes, 1 Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg Mumbai 400001 through its Deputy General Manager.

3.        M/s Joshi Autos Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Harmandeep Singh Saini, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. V.B. Aggarwal, Adv. for OPs 1 & 2

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP-3

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             This complaint has been filed by Chetan Gill against M/s Tata Motors & others.

              Briefly stated, the complainant had expressed the desire to the OPs for purchase of a Tata Indigo CS car.  However, the OPs impressed upon him that Dicor engine is more superior than the older TDI engine. On their recommendation, the complainant had bought a car vide invoice 10.6.2008 for Rs.4,80,573/- from OP-3. The car was provided with a warranty till 11.12.2009.  However, the car started giving trouble from the very first month of purchase. As per the complainant, the car was taken to the workshop of the OPs for major repairs a number of times as detailed under:-

1)  15.9.2008 with the problem of excessive engine noise and clutch problem;

2)  23.12.2008 with the problem of excessive noise caused due to faulty fan/alternator belt;

3)  7.4.2009 the Camshaft drive belt alongwith belts broke down.  Major repairs were carried out on the car on 8.4.2009 when the Camshaft drive belt alongwith other belts were replaced.

              After the car was repaired, the complainant found that many loud and abnormal noises were being emitted from the engine in the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th gear.  The car also started stalling when the AC was switched on. Thereafter the complainant also lodged a complaint with the Tata helpline because the OP-3 by now was refusing to inspect the car engine. After the complaint was registered the car was accepted by OP-3 for inspection but they could not either identify or rectify the problem. The car was thereafter handed over to him as fully repaired but when the car was taken for test drive, the complainant realized that all the same problems still persisted.  When the complainant took up the matter with the company officials of Tata Motors (OPs) again, OP-3 replaced the full set of pulleys, timing/fan belts and a number of other parts. Again more parts of the car were changed on 21.8.2009. The complainant has alleged that the problem in the car is in fact an abnormality with the engine which institutes a major defect. On road, the car has jerky movements and a persistent clutch problem.  Hence he has filed the instant complaint alleging that the OPs have sold him a defective product which is not working properly and is continuously causing him mental pain and agony.  He has, therefore, requested for replacement of the car and refund of the amount alongwith compensation.

2.               OPs 1 & 2 have filed a joint written reply.  In their reply  they have submitted that all the contentions of the complainant are unjustified and there is no defect in their vehicle since the complainant has not produced any expert opinion or evidence to prove the defects pointed out by him in the vehicle.  Further, according to them the allegations of the complainant stand contradicted by the job cards which do not mention any abnormal noise or defect in the vehicle.  Whenever the complainant has visited the workshop, the vehicle has been fully repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant as per conditions of warranty. The vehicle has already covered over 20000 kms. and the faults, if any, are because of excessive use of the vehicle which according to the OPs is due to the vehicle being used for commercial purpose. The engineers of OPs 1 & 2 have checked the vehicle properly and the high engine noise alleged by the complainant is perfectly normal.  Denying all other allegations, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.               OP-3 in their written reply have admitted the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. It is incorrect that the complainant was compelled to buy the vehicle in question.  In fact the vehicle was bought by the complainant of his own choice.  They have submitted that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle to them for service it was well attended as per the conditions of warranty. They have further submitted that it is absolutely  incorrect that the vehicle had broken down due to any manufacturing defect or that there was any engine noise in the vehicle.  It has been pleaded that the vehicle has been checked many times and found to be okay.  They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.               Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including the written arguments. 

6.               In the written arguments the parties have relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble State Commission and the Hon'ble National Commission to revalidate their stand.  Suffice to say briefly that the complainant is aggrieved because despite so many visits to the workshop and efforts by both the parties, the car is still not in perfect working condition. The OPs as per their reply and the arguments placed on record have submitted that they have repaired the car as per the requirements but still the complainant seems dis-satisfied.

7.               In the interest of justice this Forum, therefore, referred the matter to the Punjab Engineering College for obtaining the expert opinion after examining the vehicle with regard to the dispute.  The complainant had also moved an application to this effect even though it had been opposed by the OPs that it had been moved at a belated stage. 

8.               The observations made by the office of Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department of the PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh in their report dated 27.8.2010 after test driving the car for 10 KM are as under :-

1.  The engine of the vehicle is not giving proper output during low gears.

2.  The clutch system was not working properly. The clutch pedal was very hard and when the clutch pedal was released after putting the gear to move the vehicle the engine stopped. 

3.  The air conditioning system was working properly when the vehicle was running at higher gears i.e. at the speed of 45-46 Km/Hr. but engine has a problem of taking the load of Air conditioning system at lower gears.

4.  There was vibration in the vehicle between 2500-2800 RPM which is otherwise not desirable.

5.  There was a typical sound from the front left side of the vehicle/engine.

6.  There was a noise on the right side of the vehicle when driving through uneven road. This may be due to faulty shock absorber or suspension system.”

A perusal of the report clearly shows that the vehicle definitely has multifarious problems which have not been rectified by the OPs.

9.               Therefore, relying on the contents of the report as well as the submissions made by the complainant and the OPs, we are of the opinion that the OPs be directed to rectify all the defects present in the vehicle by repairing/replacing the parts as per the report of the Engineering College within one month of receipt of this order.  In case they are unable to rectify the defects as per the report, they may then refund the value of the vehicle paid by the complainant after deducting depreciation @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of this order.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy failing which they shall pay the awarded amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.