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

========

Arun Kumar r/o H.No.356, Sector 37-A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Tata Motors Limited through its Incharge, SCO No.170-171, Sector 17E, Chandigarh.

2.      Hind Motors India Limited, 15, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Manager/Incharge

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Adv. for OP-2.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo XL, classic car from OP-3 for Rs.5,99,941.94 vide invoice dated 17.8.2007 and the vehicle was financed through the State Bank of Patiala. However, the vehicle started giving troubles within the warranty period and had to be frequently taken to the OP-2 for which job cards (C-1 to C-15 collectively) were prepared and number of parts were replaced within a period of about one year but no permanent solution was made to the problems faced by the complainant.  The OPs could not bring the vehicle in order and even the parts fitted and replaced in the car were incompatible.  He served a legal notice dated 3.1.2009 but still the defects were not removed.  He also filed a consumer complaint bearing C.C. No.420 of 2009 which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 admitted the factum of purchase of the vehicle, however, it has been alleged that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes.  It has been submitted that the warranty was for initial period of 18 months and free of cost services were provided to the complainant under the warranty terms extended by the answering OP.  It has been stated that the job cards were prepared on the observations of the customers but after checking/inspection during service none were found in existence. It has been denied that the vehicle was suffering from any of the alleged manufacturing defects/problems or that any incompatible parts were fitted in the vehicle.  It has been denied that the OP-2 replaced over 100 parts in one year or that the consumable items were covered under the warranty terms. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-2 in their separate written reply took almost similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their reply and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and Learned Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record including written arguments. 

6.             The complainant has mentioned in para number 4 of the complaint the various defects regarding which he took the car to the workshop of the OP, 13 times during the period of about 13 months.  The job cards Annexure C-4 to C-15 were prepared in this respect.  The vehicle was within warranty but even then the OPs charged from the complainant a sum of Rs. 14771.54P during the said period.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that the OPs put a defective car on sale and delivered it to the complainant who had been put to unnecessary harassment.  The complainant had been taking the car to the workshop some times twice within 5 days.  The car was taken on 5.04.2008 then on 10.04.2008 and thereafter on 13.04.2008 and then on 21.04.2008 for one defect or the other.  It is true that many times the OPs did not charge anything from the complainant but that is not a big solace because a person who has to come to the workshop, four times in a month for the repair of the car alone knows whether he has purchased the vehicle for his luxury or it is a source of constant harassment and humiliation for him.  The OPs by selling a defective car are therefore liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

7.             The vehicle was got examined from the Director Principal, Swami Vivekanand Institute of Engineering & Technology who submitted his report dated 07.12.2009 now marked Annexure C-18. The Learned Counsel for the OP argued that out of the six defects mentioned in this report, the first five relate to minor adjustments of the doors or wheels and these cannot constitute a manufacturing defect.  One of the defects mentioned in the report is that rear A.C. is not placed centrally and cooling is not proper.  The rear A.C. has been placed at that point from the very beginning and has been approved at the appropriate levels about which the complainant very well knew even before purchasing the vehicle.  It therefore cannot be changed subsequently and cannot be said to be a defect.  The Learned Counsel for the OP argued that the sixth defect mentioned in the report is about an unwanted noise frequently coming from engine while driving which according to the Director Principal could be checked only after dismantling the engine.  The engine was however not dismantled in this case, with the result that there is no proof as to why the noise was coming from the engine.  Needless to mention that the existence of a manufacturing defect is to be proved by the complainant and in its absence, the complainant cannot claim the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount paid by him.  The other five defects can be conveniently looked after by the engineers of the OPs for which also we cannot order the OPs to replace the vehicle or to refund the sale consideration.

8.             There is no dispute about it that the complainant made 13 rounds of the workshop of the OP within a period of 13 months.  It appears he had purchased a headache for him instead of vehicle being a source of comfort.  The repeated visits to the workshop very well speak about the condition of the vehicle produced/sold by the OPs.  We are of the opinion that the frequent defects occurring in the vehicle requiring the complainant to take the vehicle to the workshop too often constitutes mental and physical harassment besides a financial burden on the complainant which should be borne by the OPs.

9.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are therefore directed to remove the defects as pointed out in the report Annexure C-18 free-of-cost within 15 days from the date of receipt of the vehicle from the complainant.  They shall also pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment and financial burden by selling the type of vehicle.  The OPs shall also pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. If the defects are not removed within 15 days from the receipt of the vehicle by the OPs they shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- with which the complainant would be free to get the vehicle repaired from outside.

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