BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 54 of 2011
Sri Debasish Baidya, ………………………………………………….. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Tata Motors Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director,
Head Office Situated at 1st Floor, Cybertech House,
Flat No.B-63/65, Road No.21/34 U.B … Marg,
Wangle Estate, Thane West-400604, Mumbai. O.P No.1
2. Johnson Automibiles, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Sonai Road, P.O. & P.S. Silchar
District- Cachar, Assam O.P No.2
3. Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director,
DGP House, 4th Floor, Old Prabhadevi Road,
Mumbai-400025, aharastra. O.P No.3
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri Amalava Das , Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Suddhasatta Choudhury, Advocate for the O.P. No.2
None for O.P. No.1 and O.P No.3
Date of evidence………………. 27-03-2012,
Date of written argument… 21-11-2012, 29-05-2015
Date of oral argument ….. 04-05-2017
Date of judgment……………… 02-06-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath.
- This case is brought for replacement of Tata Indica Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-11-E/4001, Chesis No.MAT 608531 APB 16986, Engine No. 4751DT14BZYP13006 or in alternative refund the price of the said vehicle because there is manufacturing defect in that vehicle.
- Accordingly, in the complaint the complainant Sri Debasish Baidya, brought allegation against Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai, (O.P No.1), Johnson Automobiles, Silchar (O.P No.2) and Financer, the Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Mumbai, to the effect that in spite of requesting to replace the said manufacturing defective vehicle the O.P No.1 repudiated his claim vide letter dated 14-09-2011.
- Accordingly notice issued. The O.P No.1 and 3 did not contest the case but O.P No.2 submitted W/S. In the W/S it is admitted that the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the O.P No.2 for Rs.4,00,050/- only on finance from O.P No.3. The vehicle after purchasing plied on the road and thereafter free service availed in time. It is also stated that on 20-09-2010 the vehicle brought to the workshop of the O.P No.3 in damaged condition which was appeared to meet accident. Accordingly, estimate for repairing was done at Rs.1,40,535/-. It is also stated that on 15/02/2011 the O.P received amount of Rs.86,800/- by a cheque dated 04-02-2011 from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as because the vehicle was under coverage of Insurance with the said Insurance Co, but the complainant concealed the fact of accident of the vehicle. Moreover, the contesting O.P took a plea that the vehicle was free from manufacturing defect and such as opined to dismiss the case with proper cost and compensatory cost.
- During hearing the complaint deposed on oath and exhibited all relevant documents regarding his ownership of the vehicle including documentary proof of payment of price of the vehicle and payment of installment to the O.P No.3. He exhibited total 49 nos. of documents but Insurance Policy was not exhibit for the reasons best known to him. Anyhow, O.P No.2 examined Sri Channa Shekhar Dutta, the workshop-in-charge of the O.P No.2 as D.W and exhibited 6 (six) documents including letter dated 15/02/2011 of the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Ext.-D.
- We have perused the evidence on record including written argument of both the complainants advocate and counsel of O.P No.2. We have also heard oral argument.
- In this case, it is crystal clear from the evidence on record that the complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle on down payment of Rs.90,914/- and balance amount of price of the vehicle paid by Financer i.e, O.P No.3 and accordingly vehicle took to the possession of the complainant. It is also evident that vehicle was playing on the road after registration on purchasing Insurance Policy. But the complainant took the allegation that the vehicle was not running on the road like a new car due to manufacturing defect. But the contesting O.P did not agree. The plea of the O.P No.2 is that the vehicle was not suffering from manufacturing defect rather the vehicle met accident and Insurance company settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.86,800/- vide Ext.D.
- We have gone through the Exd.D. It is revealed from Ext.D that United Insurance Company forwarded a cheque No. 003992 dated 04-02-2011 for RS.86,800/- as full and final settlement of claim in respect of vehicle No.AS 11E/4001 and requested to handover the cheque to the complainant. The complainant did not mention the said fact to his complaint. During hearing also did not challenge the said fact. In the written argument also remain silent without explaining the justification for omission of mentioning the fact. So, it is abundantly clear that the vehicle met accident and the complainant submit claim application to his insurer and insurer settled the claim for Rs.86,800/-. That is why, the plea of the contesting O.P that the vehicle brought to the workshop on damaged condition is believable and reliable.
- Anyhow in this case, the crux point is as whether there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
- The contesting O.P in the depositing of the D.W clearly stated that the complainant did not mention as which parts of the vehicle is detected as manufacturing defect. We have gone through the evidence on record including other materials on record but did not find any specific indication regarding manufacturing defect of any particular part or parts of the vehicle. A general statement of the complainant is available to the effect that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The general statement of the complainant is nothing but his layman’s opinion. He has not submitted any documentary proof regarding opinion of any exparte Motor Mechanic in that aspect to conclude that there is manufacturing defect in any parts of the vehicle which is not possible to repairs. The complainant is also unable to adduce any convincing evidence to establish the said allegation.
- Hence, in our considered view the complainant has measurably failed to prove the allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle. So, he is not entitled to any relief. Thus, the case is dismissed without cost.
- Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 2nd day of June, 2017.
