Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/105

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Mahajan

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 105 of 19.02.2015

Date of Decision            :   15.07.2016

 

Manjit Singh aged 40 years son of S.Fakir Singh, resident of village Adyal, P.O.Shahpurkandi, Tehsil and District Pathankot.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Tata Motors Limited, Head Office: Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Steetford, Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra, through its Director/M.D.

Regional Office:Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2.Garyson Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sherpur Chowk, G.T.Road, Ludhiana, through its Director/M.D.Authorized Signatory.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Rajneesh Mahajan, Advocate      

For OP1                         :        Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant purchased Tata Indigo CS LS E-III car having chassis No.MAT607146DPC14549 and engine No.475IDT14CWYP16183 from OP2, the authorized dealer of OP1 on 24.05.2013 vide invoice No.0013140102. The said vehicle was purchased due to good market reputation on representation of OP2. The purchased vehicle was having warranty of 2 years against manufacturing defects from the date of purchase as per the terms and conditions of the company. The said vehicle was allotted permanent registration No.PB-10-DY-5800. After few days of the purchase of the vehicle, the same started giving problems. Engine of the vehicle was not running smoothly and it started giving unwarranted noise. Complainant found some part of the side/corner wall of dicky and bonnet of car  rusted and in bad condition. There was leakage of water on the floor at the driver side. Even there was dampness on the   floor/carpet of the car, due to which, foul smell used to be emitted inside the car. These problems continued till date. Complainant took the said vehicle to the OP2 on 29.6.2013. After checking by the expert of OP2, the vehicle was retained for whole of the day for proper service and maintenance. In the evening, OP2 handed over the car to the complainant with job card by saying that problems had been removed. However, those problems were not removed. It is claimed that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. At the time of washing of the car, leakage of water inside  the car on various points was noticed. There was    a big gap between the body and dicky of the car. Complainant again approached OP2 qua the above referred problems, but all in vain. As the problems surfacing in the vehicle  not  removed and as such, complainant claims that he has suffered great mental as well as physical pain, agony and harassment. Legal notice dated 25.7.2013 through Sh.Ravinder Singh Jaggi, Advocate was served upon OPs, but to no effect and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, directions sought for replacement of the vehicle with new one, free of costs or in the alternative, removal of the defects in the vehicle sought. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is claimed that the complaint has been filed for abusing the process of law; complainant has suppressed the material facts; expert opinion or documentary proof qua the alleged manufacturing defects has not been produced. Though,onus is on the complainant    to prove the defects in the supplied goods or deficiency in provided services, but the proof of manufacturing defect not adduced. Cars and vehicles manufactured by OP1 passes through stringent quality checks and road trials before actual commercial production starts and the cars and vehicles are marketed only after approval obtained from the Automotive Research Association of India(ARAI). Even the vehicles manufactured at the plant of OP1 are thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive. Authorized dealers appointed on ‘principal to principal’ basis for sale of cars and vehicles. Services are provided by OP1 through a large number of networks of authorized dealers and service centres. These workshops provide scheduled services, running repairs, major repairs, spare-parts support etc. Averments contained in the complaint alleged to be vague, baseless and malafide. Complainant admittedly purchased Tata Indigo CS LS car from Op2, but the allegations of manufacturing defect alleged to be false. Besides, it is claimed that complainant has not disclosed the dates as to when the vehicle was brought to the authorized workshop of OP1 for removing the defects. Complainant brought the vehicle in question for the first time on 12.6.2013 for availing first free service and subsequently, he brought the same on 13.7.2013 for replacement of outside rear view mirror. Then again the vehicle was brought on 26.9.2013 for availing second free service. Job card of 29.6.20913 has not been produced by the complainant. Vehicle in question is in possession of the complainant and he is enjoying its use. There was no        defect in the vehicle in question and as such, there was no occasion for redressal of grievance of the complainant. Each and every other allegation of the complainant including service of legal notice denied through this written statement by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable because fact contained therein does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of Op2. It is claimed that the complainant has no cause of action; but admittedly the vehicle in question was taken to OP2 on 29.6.2013.It is claimed that there was no problem in the vehicle as alleged. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.M.K.Bipin Das along with document Ex.R1 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Rajinder Singh, Manager of OP2 and then closed the evidence.

7.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone heard and records gone through minutely. 

8.                Undisputedly, car in question was purchased by the complainant from OP2, the authorized dealer of OP1. Earlier complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur and the same was withdrawn. Copy of order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Complaint No.302 of 2013 titled as Manjit Singh vs. Tata Motors and others produced on record to establish that the said complaint was withdrawn due to technical defects and the permission was granted to file afresh complaint on the same cause of action after removing the defects in the competent Forum/Court. That complaint was instituted on 13.09.2013 is a fact disclosed by copy of that order. The car in question admittedly was purchased by the complainant on 24.05.2013 and as such, complaint at the earliest was filed, due to which, this complaint by no strength of imagination can be taken as time barred, being filed within 2 months from the orders of 16.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.

9.                It is the contention of counsel for the complainant that defects in the  car pointed out in para no.2 of the complaint were disclosed at the time of getting service effected from OP2 on 29.06.2013. Unexhibited photostat copy of that job card has been produced on record. That unexhibited photostat copy of the job card is not signed by anyone and as such, reliance of that unexhibited photostat copy of job card of 29.06.2013 cannot be placed for finding as to what defects actually were pointed out on that date. However, OPs have produced on record copy of service history of the car in question as Ex.R1. Perusal of this Ex.R1 reveals that car was taken for general checks and rectification on 26.9.2013. Entry is incorporated in this service history Ex.R1, the computer generated statement and as such, in the absence of due proof of unexhibited photostat copy of job card dated 29.6.2013, it has to be held that OPs able to prove as if the car in question was not taken to the premises of OP2 on 29.6.2013. Rather, car in question was taken to the premises of OP2 on dates of                        12.06.2013, 13.07.2013 and 26.09.2013 for the general checks and rectification or for removal of problem of improper image in the mirror. Had problem of engine not running smoothly or of giving unwanted noise or of rust in side/corner wall of dicky and bonnet of the car or of leakage of water on the floor at the driver side would have been there, then certainly these defects would have been pointed out by the complainant and incorporated in the service history of the car in question produced on record as Ex.R1. The defects pointed out in  para no.2 of the complaint does not find mention anywhere in Ex.R1 and as such, submissions advanced by counsel for OPs has force that though the car was taken thrice after purchase to OP2, but the same was taken for general checks and rectification of the general defects alone. Complainant has not produced any expert report to prove the above pointed manufacturing defects and as such, complainant certainly has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defects.

10.              Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice showing the purchase of the car in question on 24.5.2013, whereas Ex.C2 is the copy of Form No.21(Sale Certificate), Ex.C3 is copy of temporary registration certificate of registration and Ex.C4 is Form of CR Temporary registration number of the car, but    Ex.C5 is delivery receipt. Except these documents, complainant has not tendered any other documents in evidence to prove the allegations of the alleged problems mentioned in para no.2 of the complaint. In view of this and in view of production on record the history sheet Ex.R1 of the car in question, it has to be held that complainant has failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defects in the car.

11.              The standard of proof in consumer cases is not the same as is required in criminal cases, but it must be shown that pleadings and stand taken by the parties quite tangible and acceptable is the preposition of law laid down in case Uttam Sarkar vs. Management of Tura Christian Hospital and others-2014(2)Consumer Law Today-421(M.L.). In case before us, the complainant unable to prove the alleged manufacturing defects, but OPs able to prove that complainant never disclosed about the alleged defects at the time of availing three services from OP2 and as such, by keeping in view the ratio of the above cited case law, it has to be held that the complainant has failed to prove the alleged defects in the car in question.

12.              Onus of proving that seeds were of inferior quality was on the petitioner and in case, he failed to prove the same, then dismissal of complaint is appropriate is the law laid down in case of Harbhajan Singh vs.Jhandu Kay Coop.Agri.Service Society Limited and others-2015(IV)CLT-72(N.C.). As onus of proving the manufacturing defect or inherent defect is on the complainant, but he failed to prove the same and as such, dismissal of complaint is warranted in view of the legal and factual position as discussed above.

13.              Counsel for the complainant has taken us through the produced photographs for showing that there is mark of rust on the bonnet of the car and there is dampness in the carpet area of the car. Those unexhibited photographs cannot be taken into consideration, particularly when it is not proved that the alleged photographs pertain to the car in question. Had these photographs been pertaining to the car in question, then complainant in his affidavit Ex.CA would have make mention of those photographs and would have exhibited these photographs like other documents placed on record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. That has not been done and as such, the produced photographs seems to be not pertaining to the car in question because they do not reflect the registration number of the photographed vehicle and nor they reflect the engine and chassis number of the photographed vehicle.

14.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

15.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                                            

                      (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:15.07.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.