1. Kaushik Mukherjee,

            “Uttarpara Bhawan”,

            28/7, Gariahat Road,

            P.S. Lake, Kolkata-29.                                                                                       _________ Complainant

____Versus____

1. Tata Motors Ltd.,

            5^th Floor, Appejay House,

            15, Park Street, Kolkata-16,

P.S. Park Street.

2. K.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd.

63C, Ballygunge Circular Road,

Kolkata-19.

3. The Managing Director,

Tata Motors Ltd.,

24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001.                                                             ________ Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President

                          Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.    21   Dated   23/03/2015

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant booked a Tata Manza Aqua (colour – Sienna Gold) with o.p. no.2 against the advance payment of Rs.25,000/-, a copy of the said receipt bearing no.8151 dt.15.7.11 has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint. The offering brochure published by Tata Motors has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-A. O.p. company committed the complainant the delivery will be on 26.7.11, but the said vehicle was delivered on 13.8.11. After receiving the delivery of the vehicle complainant noticed that the colour of the vehicle was “Gothic Olive” instead of Sienna Gold. Complainant stated that when o.p. company booked the car they have promised that the car colouring Sienna Gold is available with them. But thereafter they delivered the said vehicle with Gothic Olive. Complainant has compelled to accept the said colour since already much time has been lapsed.

            Complainant further stated that complainant has arranged for a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from HDFC Bank at an interest of 9.49% per annum for purchasing the said vehicle. The total price of the said vehicle is Rs.6.5 lakhs. The loan was disbursed by HDFC Bank on 8.4.11 and released the same to o.p. no.2 on 9.8.11. Complainant further stated that on taking delivery of the said vehicle complainant noticed that outer door handles and outer rear view mirror of the said vehicle were not of the same colour with the body of the said vehicle. Besides, complainant further stated that same steering problem has arisen i.e. the steering was not “tilt adjustable power steering”. Though this specification has been mentioned in the brochure published by o.p. Complainant further stated that he immediately intimated such irregularity to o.p. company. Ultimately, o.p. company intimated the complainant that representative of o.p. no.2 will visit and resolve all the pending issues which were facing by complainant after purchasing the said vehicle. During examination by authentic person of o.p. no.2 after a short drive of the vehicle agreed that noise was coming more than the normal and the clutch was bit tilt. He suggested that the vehicle be sent to the work shop so that he looks at the issues and resolves those. However, ultimately o.p. informed the complainant that nothing could be done as regards the issued pertaining to the said vehicle and the copy of the said e-mail has been annexed by complainant with the petition of complaint as annex-I.

            However, to resolve the dispute this Forum appointed Automobile Association of Eastern India, Kolkata to inspect the car and submit their expert report. According, the said authority has furnished the report in respect of the said vehicle wherefrom it reveals that though the car is in road running condition but the engine is ejecting sound which is not of normal in nature. Besides, the handle and rear mirror not painted as per with the body colour of the vehicle. Besides, they have also observed that steering wheel assemble not adjustable. At the time of hearing ld. lawyer of complainant cited a case reference between Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Lachia Shetty 2008 (1) CLT 596 (NC) = 1 (2008) CPJ, 151 (NC) wherein Hon’ble National Commission has observed that o.ps. could not rectify the manufacturing defects despite repeated complaints and taking the vehicles to the workshop, Hon’ble National Commission held that the deficiency in service should prove and interalia direct the o.p. to replace the car or pay the cost of the car. Under such circumstances, complainant found no other alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his grievances with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.

            All o.ps. appeared in this case by filing w/v and contested the case and prayed for dismissal of the case since they have alleged that the allegation made by complainant is far from the truth. During hearing ld. lawyer of o.p. no.2 referred a decision of the case passed on 16.9.14 by the Hon’ble National Commission 2014 (4) CPR 40 (NC) between Bachan Narayan Singh vs. Eicher Plan and Marketing Headquarters, Eicher Motors Ltd. through his attorney lawyer Sri Manas Nayar and others wherein Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to observe that no manufacturing defect in the engine of a vehicle can be presumed after the vehicle had run for 1000 km and in relying upon such observation of the Hon’ble National Commission ld. lawyer of o.p. no.2 submitted that the instant case be rejected. Ld. lawyer of o.p. nos.1 and 3 during hearing submitted that the case is liable to be dismissed since the report of the expert i.e. Automobile Association of Eastern India, Kolkata stated that “The car is in road running condition”. He argued that since the car is in running condition so other defects is to be ignored and as such he also prayed that the case be dismissed since it has got no merit.

Decision with reasons:

            Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record, we hold that o.ps. made deficiency to the complainant by supplying a defective vehicle to the complainant. In relying upon the case reference cited by complainant hereinabove we hold that deficiency of service provider has been proved by complainant against the o.ps. In this particular case, complainant reported the o.p. in respect of the defects far before running of the car of 1000km. Hence, the case cited by o.p. no.2 hereinabove does not hold good in respect of the disposal of the instant case. Upon threat beard discussions as aforesaid and relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Lachia Shetty 2008 (1) CLT 596 (NC) + 1 (2008) CPJ 151 (NC) we hold that o.ps. have made sufficient deficiency to the complainant as service providers and as such, complainant has substantiated his case and is entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are jointly and/or severally directed either to replace the car in question to the complainant or refund the entire cost of the amount incurred by the complainant in respect of purchasing the car and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only

within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

            Complainant is directed to return the vehicle in question to the o.ps. within seven days after the compliance of the aforesaid directions by o.ps. to him.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.