Punjab

Sangrur

CC/503/2014

HARI SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SHRI J.S. MODGILL

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    503

                                                Instituted on:      02.09.2014

                                                Decided on:       17.03.2015

 

Hari Singh aged about 73 years son of Kehar Singh, resident of Village Chhinniwal, Tehsil and Distt. Barnala.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Tata Motors Ltd. through Area Service Manager, Area Manager, Office 1^st Floor, SCO 170-172, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160 017.

2.     Krishna Auto Sales through its Proprietor, H/O H.No.177-E, Industrial Area, Phase-I Chandigarh.

3.     Krishna Auto Sales, through its Proprietor Mehlan Road, Near Indian Oil Depot, Sangrur (Sister concern of OP number 2).

4.     Kissan Motors/Kissan Automobiles, authorised service station, Near Ware House Godown, Sangrur Bathinda Bye Pass Road, Barnala through its Proprietor (authorised service station Tata).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri J.S.Moudgill, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Exparte.

For OP No.2&3         :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

For OP No.4              :       Shri Rattan Verma, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Hari Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a Tata ACE HT vehicle on 23.3.2012 from OP number 3 for an amount of Rs.3,25,000/- in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. It is further averred that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,40,419/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.1,79,012/- was financed from HDFC Bank Ltd and the vehicle in question was got registered from the District Transport Officer, Barnala.  It is further averred in the complaint that the vehicle in question did not function properly from the very date of its purchase, as the engine oil consumption was very high.  As such, the vehicle in question was inspected by the expert engineers of the OPs on 19.11.2012 and the engine was accordingly replaced by OP number 4.  It is further stated that after a few days of replacement of the engine, the same problem arose in the engine as the mobil oil consumption was very high, as such, it is stated that there was technical and mechanical defects in the engine. Again the complainant approached OP number 4 on 4.3.2013 and the OP number 4 again replaced the engine due to mechanical defects in the engine.  It is further averred that on 19.4.2013 and 29.4.2013, the vehicle was got inspected and tested and the oil filter and engine oil was replaced by OP number 4.  The consumption of engine oil was again very high and the vehicle did not function properly.  It is further averred that the complainant spent huge amount for the purchase of the said vehicle, for changing of engine oil, diesel filter, oil filter etc.  It is further averred that despite replacement of the engine twice by the OPs, the vehicle did not work properly, as such  the complainant approached OPs for replacement of the engine of the vehicle or to refund the price of the vehicle, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the TATA ACE vehicle with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 26.11.2014.

 

3.             In reply filed by Ops number 2 and 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purpose and that the complainant has dragged the OPs into false litigation.  On merits,  it has been denied that the complainant purchased the vehicle for self employment.  However, it is admitted that OP number 2 is the authorised dealer and OP number 3 is its sister concern.  It has been stated that the vehicle was sold by OP number 3 at Sangrur and thereafter, the vehicle was never brought by the complainant to the OPs for service. As such, any deficiency in service eon the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 4, legal objections are taken up on the ground that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. That the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and false and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The jurisdiction of this Forum has also been disputed by the OPs. On merits, it is admitted that OP number 4 is the authorised service station of OP number 1. It is further admitted that the engine of the vehicle of the complainant was changed by the OP number 4 on the instructions/request of OP number 1 under warranty.  It is further stated that the engine oil, diesel oil filters etc. were replaced as per the requirements. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 4 has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of complaint dated 25.3.2013, Ex.C-2 copy of order dated 20.5.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of legal  notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of receipts, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-8 copies of acknowledgements, Ex.C-9 copy of service history, Ex.C-10 copy of receipt, Ex.C-11 copy of RC, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-16 copies of challan/bills, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-17 copies of bills/challan, Ex.C-18 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2&3 has produced Ex.OP2&3/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 4 has produced Ex.OP4/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             First of all, it has been clearly mentioned in the complaint that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.  Since the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record that the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purpose, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the vehicle in question was purchased by him in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle i.e. Tata ACE HT from OP number 3 on 23.3.2012.  It is further an admitted fact that since the engine of the vehicle was consuming excess mobil oil, as such the complainant got the vehicle inspected from OP number 4, who further got the same checked from the expert engineers of OP number 1 and found that the engine of the vehicle requires replacement with a new one, as such OP number 4 replaced the engine of the vehicle on 19.11.2012 at the reading of 14383 as is evident from the service history, Ex.C-9.  It is further in the case file that even after replacement of the engine, the consumption of the mobil oil was on the higher side, as such, again the engine of the vehicle in question was replaced by the OPs on 4.3.2013, as is evident from the service history on record Ex.C-9.   It is further on record that thereafter on 19.4.2013 and 29.4.2013 the consumption of the mobil oil by the engine of the vehicle in question was found on the higher side, as such, the complainant again requested the Ops for replacement of the vehicle in whole with a new one, but all in vain.   Since in the present case, the engine of the vehicle in question was replaced twice, but the consumption of the mobil oil by the engine of the vehicle could not be set right, as such, it seems that there must be some inherent manufacturing defect in the replaced engine also.  The complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from Op number 3 to ply the vehicle in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment by financing the same from HDFC Bank Limited, as such the complainant is a consumer of the OPs.

 

9.             Since it is an admitted case that the OPs replaced the engine of the vehicle in question twice, as such, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the OPs be directed to replace the whole of the vehicle in question with a new one or to refund the price of the vehicle alongwith interest.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Palam Tractors versus Shri Jamir Ahmmed 2010(2) CPC 676 (HP State Commission), wherein it has been held that despite replacement of engine of the three wheeler, the defect could not be removed, as such, it was ordered for replacement of the engine of the vehicle and further awarded compensation for harassment. As such, we feel that the above said case law is fully applicable in the facts of the present case, as such, present complaint deserves to be allowed as it is a clear cut case of deficient in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs number 1 to 3 to replace the engine of the vehicle in question with a new one within 15 days of receipt of the vehicle with the OPs from the complainant, failing which the OPs number 1 to 3 shall refund to the complainant the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3,25,000/- after taking the delivery of the vehicle as well as documents thereof.  The Ops number 1 to 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.

 

 

11.                    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 17,2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member