Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/184/2023

Durgesh Kumar Jha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kartik Bhardwaj

06 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/184/2023
Date of Institution	:	06/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	06/06/2024

 

Durgesh Kumar Jha S/o Sh.Parmanand Jha R/o H.No.2430, Pushpak-1, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh-160047.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. 4^th Floor, Ahura Centre 82 Mahakali Caves Road MIDC, Andheri East Mumbai-400093. Through its Managing Director/Director/Regional Manager/ Chairman/Authorized representative.
2. RSA Dynamic Motors LLP, Plot No.5, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh. Through its Partners/Proprietor/Authorized representative.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Sahil Chaudhary, Advocate for OP No.1 (through VC).
	:	Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for OP No.2 (through VC).

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.     Averments are that the complainant had purchased Nexon XM(S) Petrol Car on 25.03.2022 for Rs.8,96,900/- alongwith accessories for Rs.55,400/- from OP No.2 (Annexure C-2 & C-3). It is also submitted that complainant had availed car loan to extent of Rs.9,04,898/- from HDFC and paying monthly EMI of Rs.13,769/- (Annexure C-4). After taking the delivery when complainant was driving his new car to home and on his way, he observed that certain mechanical/technical error in ignition box of his car where EMS alert light continued to remain on & would not turn off as far as car is being driven. Thereafter, complainant raised the complaint with OP No.2 and sales executive of OP No.2 noted down his complaint on the phone. Complainant also informed the OP that he had paid for Rs.55,400/- for accessories out of which scuff plates were not installed. Thereafter, complainant was advised to get the same affixed when he would visit for getting the HSRP fixed. On 30.03.2022 the complainant visited the showroom, however, to utter disappointment of complainant by now he had also noticed that the music system was not working properly. The complainant visited workshop known as Berkley Tata where it was revealed to complainant that it’s not minor issue and in fact engine of his car would need replacement. Complainant was shocked to hear this that new car which he bought a week ago only needs an engine replacement. After OP assured in written that replacement of engine will not impact running span of his car and won’t cause any other technical glitch, he bought his car to workshop for purpose of engine replacement on 11.4.2022 and 12.4.2022 he got his car back after replacement. It is further alleged that there was a manufacturing defect in the car that was sold to complainant. Not only this, within 3 months other issues with the door was also found and certain replacements were done in the door of the car within 3 months of buying it. Therefore, it is proved that not only the engine was defective but inbuilt locking system and door installation was also officially found defective within 2-3 months of its purchase. It is crystal clear that there has been a manufacturing defect in the car that has been sold to the complainant.0 Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the vehicle does not have any issue which is evident from the fact that the vehicle has already covered more than 12,000 kms. and has been reported for minor issues such as music system not working properly, central lock issue etc. which are bound to arise due to on road conditions and usage of the vehicle. It is further worthwhile to mention herein that to upkeep the vehicle, the vehicle is required to be brought to the workshop for carrying out necessary scheduled services and it is evident from the complaint that no major issue has been raised in the complaint except the initial issue which was resolved as per the terms and conditions of warranty and obligation of the Answering OP. The present complaint is not maintainable because the vehicle was admittedly purchased on installments from M/s HDFC Bank Limited and thus, the Complainant is not the de-jure owner of the vehicle in question because the complainant is merely the Hirer/Bailee. Hence, he does not come under the definition of the Consumer as provided under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that after replacement of the engine vehicle of complainant did not suffer any problem related to the engine and rather the complainant in Para No.15 of his complaint has specifically admitted that the issue of EMS alert light has been resolved. On this ground the said grievance of the complainant is not maintainable. It is further stated that the complainant has got his vehicle repaired/serviced from M/s Joshi Autotech Pvt. Ltd. on last three occasions i.e. on 20.09.2022, 03.11.2022 and 21.03.2022, which is the best entity to comment upon the latest position of the vehicle in question. However, the complainant has deliberately not impleaded M/s Joshi Autotech Pvt. Ltd. so that the truth about the perfect running condition of vehicle in question may not come out through M/s Joshi Autotech Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the present complaint is also bad for non-impleading the necessary party and deserves to be dismissed o this ground. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the music system, engine and auto door locking system of the vehicle of OP No.1, started giving trouble within few months of its purchase and alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle & sought for its replacement alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment.
8.     It is an admitted fact that as & when vehicle gave different problems during warranty period, took some time for carrying out necessary repairs during the warranty period. As per complainant, the vehicle has already run more than 25,000 Kms on the date of arguments. We are of the view that there is no manufacturing defect and the vehicle is running satisfactorily.
9.     Since, after purchase of the new vehicle, it gave many problems and the complainant had to visit the workshop of OP No.1, many a times, he needs to be compensated for the mental agony & harassment for non use of vehicle many a times during warranty period.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed to pay a lumpsum compensation amount of ₹30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization.
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
06/06/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member