IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July , 2015
Filed on 24.10.2009
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.345/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Hariprasad, S/o Bhargavan 1.Tata Motors Ltd., 3rd Floor
Chirayil Veedu, Muhamma P.O. Tuttoos Towers, NH Bye Pass
Alappuzha Padivattom, Kochi
(By Adv. T. Saji)
2.St. Antony’s Motors
Vadavathoor P.O., 111/172
K.K. Road, Kottayam
3.Focuz Motors, Thookkukulam
Junction, Sanadanapuram P.O.
Alappuzha
(By Adv. V.Krishna Menon &
Adv. C. Muraleedharan – for
Opposite parties 1 to 3)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the then Forum passed an order on 29.2.2012 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suo motto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant purchased Tata Indica Vista car from the first opposite party and within a few days of purchase, manufacturing defect developed in the car and because of that he sustained mental agony and huge financial loss. Complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for doing service and one the very same day of servicing the A/C of the car failed to function and the vehicle stalled in the road and at the request of the first opposite party complainant handed over the vehicle to the third opposite party. Due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle, the defects were not rectified by the second and third opposite parties and complainant informed this to the first opposite party. First opposite party was also failed to rectify the defects. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed directing the opposite parties to take back the vehicle of the complainant and give a new vehicle or refund the amount of Rs.4,35,000/- towards the value of the price along with compensation.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protect Act.Complainant had alleged bald and vague allegations of the manufacturing defects in the car in question. The vehicle of the complainant does not suffer from any defects.Complainant had taken his vehicle to the work shop of the third opposite party only on 3 occasions ie. on 20.2.2009 for having the floor mat cleaning, on 25.2.2009 for a complaint that AC water was entering inside the cabin and on 18.4.2009 for attending to the 5000 km. servicing and a complaint of dash board rattling.There is no merit or basis in the allegations of the complainant that the alleged complaints in the vehicle which were not attended by the second opposite party and which were notice of the third opposite party had not been rectified.The complainant had on 15.5.2009 approached the second opposite party alleging that there were complaints in his vehicle.He had however instructed the second opposite party not to start the repair works unless and until he gave his approval.Since the complainant did not give his approval for about 5 days the second opposite party had addressed a letter to the complainant on 20.5.2009 seeking his approval for the work.This opposite party had also sent a letter dated 2.6.2009 requesting the complainant to give his approval to the second opposite party for carrying out the repairs.This opposite party is instructed to state that the second opposite party had sent another reminder letter dated 11.6.2009.It is only after receipt of the letter of the second opposite party dated 11.6.2009 that the complainant gave his approval for carrying out the repairs in his vehicle.After the repairs the second opposite party had sent a letter dated 16.6.2009 informing the complainant that the repairs to the vehicle were completed and asking him to take delivery of the vehicle.This opposite party had also informed the complainant as per letter dated 16.6.2009 that the repair to his vehicle had been completed and requesting him to take delivery of the vehicle.Since the complainant did not take delivery of the vehicle, the second opposite party had sent a reminder letter dated 24.7.2009.However, the complainant has for reasons best known to him not bothered to take his vehicle from the workshop of the second opposite party till date.This opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible for the same.The opposite party has not caused any loss to the complainant and he is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation.
4.Theversion of the second opposite party is as follows:-
The car sold to the complainant was not having any manufacturing defect and it never developed any problem due to the manufacturing defect.Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party with the car the opposite party has given timely attention and services.The complainant brought the car to the opposite party complaining some defects which can cause to any motor car and the opposite party promptly repaired the defect and informed the complainant to take the car. Despite several request by the second opposite party the complainant failed to take the vehicle.At last the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant to take the car.On receipt of that letter to the complainant, he came to the opposite party’s show room but instead of taking the vehicle, the complainant spoke to the service manager of the opposite party in a bad tone and demanded that the second opposite party should give a new car to the complainant or else they should return the value of the car.This opposite party most humbly submitted that the car sold to the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect and the opposite party has repaired the minor repairs of the car and now the car is lying in the second opposite party’s show room in perfect running condition.It is the complainant who is not taking back the repaired car claiming unreasonable demands and the sole intention of the complainant is to make illegal and unjust enrichment and to harass the second opposite party.
- The version of the third opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party does not admit the statement made in paragraph 2 of the complaint petition that within a few days of purchase of the Tata Indica Car by the complainant various manufacturing defects were noticed in the vehicle and thereby he had suffered monetary loss.The complainant is put to strict proof of the same.It is submitted that the complainant had brought his vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party only on three occasions – viz. 20.2.2009 for having the floor mats cleaned, on 25.2.2009 for a complaint that A/C water was entering inside the cabin and on 18.4.2009 for attending to the 5000 km. service and a complaint of dash board rattling.On all the three occasions mentioned above, this opposite party had attended to the complaints, which were minor in nature and the service to the satisfaction of the complainant and he had taken delivery of the vehicle on each occasion expressing satisfaction over the work done it is further submitted that after 18.4.2009 the complainant had at no point of time brought his vehicle to the workshop of this opposite party.This opposite party being a authorized service centre of the first opposite party cannot be made liable in the facts and circumstances of the case.The complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1, and documents Exts.A1 to A17 were marked.The expert commissioner was examined as CW1.The commission report is marked is Ext.C1.The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed proof affidavits and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6.
6.The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
7. Point No.1:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from the first opposite party. According to the complainant he purchased the vehicle for his own use. No contra evidence adduced by the opposite party in order to substantiate the contention that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant is a consumer and complaint is maintainable.
8. Point No.2 & 3:- According to the complainant he purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party through the second opposite party the dealer. Ext.A13 dated 7.1.2009 evidence the same. On e of the allegations of the complainant is that within a few days from the date of purchase the vehicle was having manufacturing defect and that caused one trouble after another. On the very same day of service itself the A/C became defective and the vehicle while it was running suddenly stopped and the complainant again taken the vehicle to the opposite party as per the direction of the first opposite party. The second opposite party prepared it and returned to the complainant. Again the vehicle became defective and he entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party. According to the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 the car sold to the complainant was not having any manufacturing defect. They further admitted that complainant had taken the vehicle to the workshop of third opposite party on 20.2.2009 for having the floor mats cleaned, on 25.2.2009 for a complaint that A/C water was entering inside the cabin and on 18.4.2009 for attending to 5000 km. servicing and a complaint of dash board rattling. According to the third opposite party these defects were minor in nature and were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant and after 18.4.2009 the complainant had at no point of time taken his vehicle to the workshop of the third opposite party. But Ext.A17 the job card dated 11.5.2009 issued by the third opposite party shows that the vehicle was again taken to the third opposite party for having defects like coolent loss, Speedo meter not working, oil leaking from engine. Ext.A7 job card shows that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 13.5.2009. Opposite parties 2 and 3 admitted that the complainant approached the second opposite party on 15.5.2009 alleging that there were complaints in his vehicle. According to the complainant opposite parties 2 and 3 failed to rectify the defects of his vehicle so that he wanted of replace the said vehicle and as per the direction of third opposite party, he entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party and it was lying there as useless. According to the opposite party they had sent several letters to the complainant seeking his approval of the work and on getting approval they repaired the vehicle and even though they informed the complainant that the repairment of his vehicle had been completed, the complainant did not take delivery. So according to the opposite party the vehicle has no defects as alleged by the complainant. But it is come out in evidence by the admission of the opposite party that the vehicle purchased on 7.1.2009 was attended by opposite parties 2 and 3 for several times for one reason or another. More over, the said vehicle has covered only 6952 km. In a decision reported in 2014(1) CPJ page 135 Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Thyagi and another, Hon’ble National Commission stated that, “Whenever a consumer goes for a brand new goods like the vehicle his minimum expectation is that he would not encounter or face any inconvenience or hardship for few months or a year and if he had to take the vehicle time and again to the workshop for removing one defect or the other, he suffers immensely in terms of loss of time, loss of business, physical discomfort and emotional sufferings having not reaped the fruits of paying heavy amount for purchasing a new vehicle.” In the instant case the opposite party contended the vehicle entrusted with them was repaired and it has no defect at all. But the expert commission report dated 21.10.2011 which marked as Ext.C1 shows that the vehicle has still some defects. In Ext.C1 report, he categorically stated that, “
From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the vehicle of the complainant has still some defects. The vehicle was lying with the second opposite party from 2009 onwards. The complaint is filed on 24.10.2009. The opposite parties never undertake before the Forum that they are ready to return the defect free vehicle to the complainant. The failure on the part of the opposite parties in providing a defect free vehicle to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, we are of opinion that the opposite parties are bound to refund the value of the price as on the date of purchase with interest to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,78,736/-, the purchase value of the vehicle with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. Since primary relief is granted, there is no order as to compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Hariprasad (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Notice dated 27.6.2009
Ext.A2 - Postal receipts
Ext.A3 - Acknowledgement cards
Ext.A4 - Reply notice dated 21.7.2009
Ext.A5 - Letter dated 2.6.2009
Ext.A6 - Letter dated 22.10.2007
Ext.A7 - Letter dated 10.7.2009
Ext.A8 - Letter dated 24.7.2009
Ext.A9 - - Letter dated 13.5.2009
Ext.A10 - Cash receipt dated 18.4.2009
Ext.A11 - Cash receipt dated 21.2.2009
Ext.A12 - Copy of certificate of registration
Ext.A13 - Bill dated 7.1.2009
Ext.A14 - Owners’ manual
Ext.A15 - Receipt dated 6.6.2009
Ext.A16 - Statement of account
Ext.A17 - Job card No. 5357
CW1 - K.Harikrishnan (Court Witness)
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of letter dated 20.5.2009
Ext.B2 - Copy of letter dated 2.6.2009
Ext.B3 - Copy of letter dated 11.6.2009
Ext.B4 - Copy of letter dated 16.6.2009 sent by second opposite party
Ext.B5 - Copy of letter dated 16.6.2009 sent by first opposite party
Ext.B6 - Copy of letter dated 24.7.2009 sent by first opposite party
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
