CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 439/2011

Sh. Manmohan Singh

R/o J-3/88, First Floor, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110027                                             ……Complainant

Versus

1.      TATA Motors Limited

          Manufacturer and Seller of TATA-Nano-Car

          Passenger Car Business Unit,

          Unit Number 305, Third Floor, Tower-B,

          Signature Tower- South City-I,

          NH-8, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana)

2.      TATA Motors Limited

          Authorized Dealer

          M/s Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

          Office and Showroom D-13/1,

          Defence Colony,

          New Delhi-110024

3.      TATA Motors Limited

          Authorized Dealer M/s Oberoi Cars Pvt. Ltd.

        C-12, Sector-I,

          Noida-201301

4.      TATA Motors Limited

          Authorized Dealer

M/s Pahwa Motors Pvt. Ltd.

C-93 Wazirpur Industrial Area,

Main Ring Road, Opposite Shalimar Bagh,

New Delhi-110052                          ……Opposite Parties

                                                Date of Institution        : 07.12.11                                                  Date of Order                : 29.09.15

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 26.07.2010, he had purchased a Nano Car Model Nano LX Metalic, bearing no. DL3C-BK-0787 from OP-2 for Rs.1,89,799/-.  After purchasing the said vehicle, he came to know that during the month of August, 2010 the petrol consumption average was between 07 to 8 K.M per litre.  but he was assured that the petrol consumption average would be 24 K.M per litre. He sent a complaint to OP No.1 on 17.10.2011 regarding petrol consumption average being very low. He sent many letters to OPs regarding petrol consumption but no response was received from the OPs though in the meantime petrol average consumption increased to between 12 to 12½ K.M. per litre. Therefore, the car is defective and faulty.  He requested OP No.1 to take back the delivery of the car and refund an amount of Rs.2,45,931/-  as detailed in the complaint. The reply was received from the OPs but the reply was not satisfactory. The Complainant has prayed that OP No.1 should take back the delivery of the car or refund an amount of Rs.245931/- plus Rs.2 lakhs for causing mental pain and agony to him.

OP No.1 in its written statement has stated that the Complainant has miserably failed to point out that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect as he has not produced any documentary evidence. The OP No.4 have time and again sent letters to the Complainant to bring his vehicle so that the vehicle could be thoroughly inspected and if there is any problem the same can be rectified but despite repeated requests, he never brought the vehicle which shows that he is not interested to get the vehicle repaired.  He has been negligent and careless in handling the vehicle and because of mishandling of the vehicle the clutch plate had damaged which was replaced by the concerned dealer. Reliance has been placed on the warranty clause No.5 which reads as under:-

“This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure, or by any person  other than authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres in any way so as, in our judgment which shall be final and finding, the vehicle or the part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and servicing or loading in excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us or the services prescribed by Operator’s    Service Book are not carried out at our sales or service establishments, our authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres.”

OP No.1 has further stated that the vehicle sold to the Complainant is of a highest quality and he had taken the delivery after entire satisfaction. He had intentionally not brought the vehicle to them for necessary job by the OP No.4 but he filed the complaint instead of bringing the vehicle for redressal of his grievance. OP No.1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

OP No.4 has stated that as per the settled law the dealer is not liable for manufacturing defect but the vehicle in question is not having any manufacturing defect. He has no grievance for the services rendered by them. The vehicle was having the problem of clutch slippage. He was advised for clutch replacement in warranty period but he refused for replacement of the clutch and had taken the vehicle back.   OP No.4 also assured him that the petrol consumption average would increase in future if he replaces the clutch.  The average problem was created due to his own negligence and clutch slippage.  The OP No.4 during the service hours not found any defect or default except clutch slippage but he had not got replaced the clutch as advised by the OPs. OPs are customer friendly companies and infact conducted the road test on the request of the Complainant.  OP No.4 has prayed dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

OP No.2 & 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 27.01.2012.

Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence, while affidavit of Sh. M. K. Bipin Dass, Senior Manager (Law) and affidavit of Sh. Sant Kumar, General Manager have been filed in evidence on behalf of OP No.1 & 4.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Complainant and OP No.1.

We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

We straightway come to the question, whether refusal of change of vehicle or refund of amount to the Complainant by the OPs was justified and, if so, whether the Complainant is not entitled to any relief?

Admittedly, the Complainant had purchased a Nano Car, model Nano LX Metalic on 26.07.2010 from OP No.2 manufactured by OP No.1.

The parties did not care to mark the exhibit nos./annexures nos. on their respective documents.  The OP No.1 sent a letter dated 31.10.2011 to the Complainant with a request to bring the car to workshop for necessary repairs (for the purpose of identification the document is marked as Annexure-A).  The OP No.1 vide letter dated 09.11.2011 again sent a letter regarding average issue in DL3CBK0787 Nano Car wherein they had advised the Complainant to replace the clutch in warranty period and after replacement of the clutch they will take road test of the vehicle alongwith him and also take all parameter if he  is not satisfied with vehicle fuel average after replacement of clutch and also matter will be escalated to plant for further rectifications (for the purpose of identification the document is marked as Annexure-B). The OP No.1 vide letter dated 24.11.2011 requested the Complainant to bring the vehicle to workshop for necessary repair/rectifications so that they could reach to some conclusion after completion of job (for the purpose of identification the document is marked as Annexure-C). OP No.1 vide letter dated 08.12.2011 requested the Complainant to send his vehicle to workshop for necessary repair/rectification.  For the purpose of identification the document is marked as Annexure-D). OP No.1 vide letter dated 20.12.2011 requested the Complainant to send his vehicle to workshop for necessary repair/rectification. For the purpose of identification the document is marked as Annexure-E.

In view of the above it transpires that the OPs sent so many letters to the Complainant to bring his vehicle so that the vehicle could be thoroughly inspected and if there was any problem the same could be rectified but the Complainant never visited the OPs for repair/rectification of the vehicle.   In so far as allegation of the low average is concerned, it depends on driving by a particular person and the condition under which the vehicle is being driven. The traffic in Delhi does not allow anybody to attend the maximum speed in idle condition because of the heavy traffic on the road. The continuous running of the vehicle while stationary on red lights also affects the mileage. The fuel so consumed cannot be added while calculating the average of a vehicle.  Moreover, in the present case low mileage average was due to defective clutch plate.  In the absence of any proof it is hard to believe that the vehicle in question is in anyway suffering from any defect what to say of manufacturing defect. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to make out a case for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices on the part of OPs and accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 29.09.15.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                        (N.K. GOEL)

MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT