Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1031/2010

Naresh Kumar S/o Raghbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Sandaliya

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 1031 of 2010

                                                                                    Date of institution: 28.10.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 29.08.2016.

Naresh Kumar aged about 40 years son of Shri Raghbir Singh, resident of House No.27, Village Chhota Bans, Post Office Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.                           

                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. Tata Motors Limited, Teen Hath Naka, Gian Sadan, College Service Road, Thane-400604.
2. Pasco Motors, National  Highway No.73, Opp. Gurudwara, Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Dosarka, Tehsil Barara, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Modern Diesel & Electricals, Near Power House, Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                               …Respondents.                                       

 

Before: SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

            SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:    Sh. Ajay Shadaliya, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                 None for respondent No.1.

                 Sh. K.D.Bakshi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2.              

                 Sh. R.L.Chaneti, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3.

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2                      Brief facts of the resent complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one vehicle make TATA LPT 1109 from respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred as OP No.2) who is authorized dealer of OP No.1 manufacturer for a sum of Rs. 9,05,000/- vide invoice No. 555 dated 31.05.2010. The complainant drove the said vehicle as per norms laid down in the service book issued by OP No.1 at the time of purchasing the said vehicle but since the day of purchase of the vehicle, there was some problem in the head and V. Pump of the vehicle in question, due to that complainant approached the OP No.2 and the official of OP No.2 told to him that Head and V. Pump of the vehicle in question is required to be replaced for smooth running of the vehicle and further asked to the complainant to approach the OP No.3 who is also their authorized person for the said purpose and who will change the Head and V. Pump of the vehicle in question without any cost. Accordingly, the complainant approached the OP No.3 who got checked the vehicle and told that Head and V. Pump is required to be changed. After getting the work done, the OP No.3 demanded a sum of Rs. 11959/- from the complainant and when the complainant told that vehicle in question is newly purchased vehicle and the same is within warranty, then Op No.3 deducted only Rs. 2000/- in the total bill amount and charged Rs. 9959/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 on telephone and disclosed regarding the demand of amount, upon which, the OP No.2 also told to the complainant to pay the amount to the OP No.3. The complainant had purchased a brand new vehicle and the vehicle as well as its parts was carrying warranty but the OPs have illegally charged from the complainant an amount of Rs. 9959/-, which is totally illegal without any right and the same is liable to be refunded to him. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 9959/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable; complainant has concealed the true and material facts and the true facts are that the vehicle in question had covered a distance of 60018 KM as on 18.07.2011 i.e. within a mere span of 13 months. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle in question has been purchased for commercial purpose. Thus, the complainant cannot claim a status of consumer; as per information received, the complainant was irregular in getting the recommended services done at regular intervals, in the present case, the complainant alleged defects in pump, which was manufactured by Mico Bosch and repaired by its authorized workshop i.e. Op No.3 on paid basis due to negligence on the part of the complainant. So, the complainant cannot claim the warranty as a matter of right; the relationship exists between the opposite party is on principal to principal basis and on merit controverted the plea taken by the complainant and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OP No.2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been admitted that complainant purchased TATA LPT 1109 vide invoice No. 555 dated 31.05.2010 from OP No.2. However, it has been denied that since the day of purchase there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle after sale and after running satisfactorily 16300 KM on rough and sandy areas for commercial use was brought for first service to OP No.2 with the complaint of starting and loss of power. On inspection, the adulterated oil fuel was found being used in vehicle which is against instructions. Due to adulteration in the used oil fuel head got worn out was reported. This is not manufacturing defect. Free service was carried out and vehicle returned satisfactorily to the complainant on 08.09.2010 itself. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint being no deficiency in service.

5.                     OP No.3 also filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections and on merit it has been denied that Head and V Pump of the said vehicle was having some problem since its purchase. However, it has been admitted to the extent that OP No.3 checked the pump of the vehicle and replaced the defective parts therefrom and charged a sum of Rs. 9959/- from the complainant. It has been further mentioned that the pump in question was manufactured by Bosch Limited and the Op No.3 is only service agent of OpNo.1, so, the OP No.3 cannot be penalized due to the fault of the complainant and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

6.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and photo copies of documents such as copy of bill dated 07.09.2010 issued by Op No.3 amounting to Rs. 9959/- as Annexure C-1, Bill amounting to Rs. 735/- as Annexure C-2, Form No.21, copy of invoice as Annexure C-3 to C-5, Copy of authority letter as Annexure C-6, Copy of warranty card as Annexure C-7, Copy of job sheets/invoice of Op No.2 as Annexure C-8 to C-13 and closed his evidence.

7.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence its evidence was closed by court order dated 15.02.2015.

8.                     Counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar Manager, as Annexure RW2/A and affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Verma, Service Advisor Ambala Cantt as Annexure RW2/B and documents such as job card as Annexure RW2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Op No.2.

9.                     Counsel for OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. M.S.Chautani, as Annexure RW3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3.    

10                    We have heard the counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP No.2 & 3 reiterated the averments made in their reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                    It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the vehicle TATA Make LPT 1109 for a sum of Rs. 9,05,000/- vide Invoice No. 555 dated 31.05.2010 from Op No.2 manufactured by OP No.1. The only dispute between the parties is that, as per complainant, Op No.3 who is service agent of Op No.1 has charged an amount of Rs. 9959/- illegally from the complainant on account of replacement of parts as well as repair of Head and V Pump, which is duly evident from the copy of bill dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure C-1), whereas the vehicle in question was having warranty for 18 months from the date of purchase of vehicle or 1,50,000 KM whichever is earlier (Annexure C-7). Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attentions towards job sheet/ invoice of Passco motors (Annexure C-8) dated 08.09.2010 and argued that till 08.09.2010 the vehicle in question ran only 16300 KM within a period of 3 months and 10 days from its purchase i.e. from 31.05.2010 to 08.09.2010. So, the Op No.3 has illegally charged the amount of Rs. 9959/- from the complainant during the currency of the warranty of the vehicle in question.

12.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that the vehicle in question was not having any manufacturing defect and an amount of Rs. 9959/- has been rightly charged by OP No.3, as the complainant himself was negligent as he was irregular in getting the recommended free services at regular intervals and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 3. From the perusal of invoice/ purchase bill dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure C-5) , it is clearly evident that complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.2 on 31.05.2010 and the vehicle in question was having warranty of 18 months from the date of purchase or 1,50,000 KM. whichever is earlier. Further, from the perusal of bill dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure C-1) issued by OP No.3, who is service agent of OpNo.1, for the repair/replacement of parts manufactured by Mico Bosch, it is duly evident that Op No.3 has charged an amount of Rs. 9959/- and Rs. 735/- (Annexure C-1 and C-2) from the complainant on account of repair/ overhauling head or V Pump etc. of the vehicle in question on 07.09.2010 and at that time the vehicle in question had run only 16300 KM within a period of 3 months from the date of purchased, which is duly evident from the copy of job sheet dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure C-8). So, from the perusal of bill dated 07.09.2010 (Annexure C-1) and job sheet dated 08.09.2010 (Annexure C-8), it is clearly evident that the Head and V Pump of the vehicle in question became defective within a short span of time i.e. 3 months from its purchase and the OP No.3 was duty bound to replace or repair the said parts free of costs being under warranty but OP No.3 has wrongly and illegally charged the amount of Rs. 9959/- and 735/- from the complainant, which constitute deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 3.

14.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.3 to refund the amount of Rs. 10,694/- ( Rs. 9959+735= 10,694/-) to the complainant charged by OP No.3 from the complainant alongwith interest  at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. However, the OP No.3 is at liberty to claim the same from OP No.1, if so advised, as per their terms and conditions executed between them.  Complaint qua OP No.2 is hereby dismissed being no deficiency in service. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 29.08.2016.           

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                   

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER.