cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of October 2012
Filed on : 28-10-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
C.C. No. 597/2011
Between
Shaini E.K. : Complainant
W/o. Raju, residing at (By Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)
E-1-Quarters, GCDA,
Opp. Central School,
Kadavanthara, Kochi-682 020.
And
1. Tata Motors Ltd., : Opposite parties
Regd. Office Bombay house, 24, (2nd o.pBy Adv. V. Krishna
Homi mody street, fort, Menon, HRS Complex,
Mumbai-400 001. 1st floor, SRM Road,
rep. by its General Manager. Kochi-682 018)
2. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd.,
10/256/C, Nettoor, Maradu
Panchayath, Kochi-682 304,
rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 17-08-2011 the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 5,46,421/-. On the very next day of purchase the complainant noticed a noise from the front side of the vehicle. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party on 12-09-2011 the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the 2nd opposite party for repairs. The 2nd opposite party repaired the defect and returned the vehicle on 15-09-2011. Since the same problem was recurring the vehicle was again entrusted with the 2nd opposite party on 21-09-2011. The 2nd opposite party assured to redeliver the vehicle on 30-09-2011. The 2nd opposite party could redeliver the vehicle on 12-10-2011. Even now the vehicle has the same defect and the defect of the vehicle was not cured. Due to the delay in delivery of the vehicle the complainant had to hire a taxi for a trip during Pooja holidays along with her family. The opposite parties sent an e-mail dated 14-10-2011 intimating that they are ready to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant. The said admission on the part of the opposite parties proves that there is deficiency in service on their part. Thus the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties.
i. to provide a brand new vehicle to the complainant or to refund its price?
ii. To direct the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 20,588/- being the expenses incurred by the complainant for hiring taxi
iii. to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party.
The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. There is no evidence before the Forum to prove the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The 2nd opposite party has been prompt and swift to attending to the alleged problems highlighted by the complainant and as on date there exists no problems highlighted in the car. The vehicle of the complainant was taken to the workshop of the 2nd opposite party on 12-09-2011 for attending to the 1st re-service as well as to attend to a complaint of noise. The 2nd opposite party rectified the defect by replacing the front knuckle under warranty. Thereafter the vehicle was once again taken to the workshop of the 2nd opposite party on 21-09-2011. After a through inspection as gesture of goodwill the left and right stabilizer link assembly as well as steering knuckle had been replaced under warranty and the vehicle was redelivered to the complainant on 06-10-2011. At the instance of the 2nd opposite party the complainant took her vehicle to the work shop on 30-11-2011 and the modified knuckle bearing was fitted in the vehicle. The offer of Rs. 3,000/- was made as a gesture of good-will without admitting any liability. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. The 2nd opposite party as well filed a separate version stating the similar contentions that of the 1st opposite party.
4. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exbts. A1 to A10 were marked. Witness for the opposite parties were examined as DWs 1 and 2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the
vehicle with a new one or to get refund of its price?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.
20,588/- towards taxi expenses due to the deficiency in
service on the part of the opposite parties?
iv. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
6. Point No. i. Apart from the contentions in the version that the complainant is not a consumer nothing is forthcoming to substantiate the same. Rejected hence.
7. Point No. ii. Admittedly on 13-08-2011 the complainant purchased a car from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party at a price of Rs. 5,46,421/- evident from Ext. A1 invoice. It is not in dispute that within the warranty period the complainant had to garage the vehicle for replacement of steering knuckle and stabilizer linked assembly. As of now there is no evidence on record to show that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the opposite parties. According to the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expert evidence is essential to prove the manufacturing defect of a vehicle. (Kumari Narmata Singh Vs. Manager Indus A Division of Electrotherm & Anr. 2012 (3) CPR 570 (NC) ). In the absence of such evidence we are of the firm view that the complainant is neither entitled to get replacement of the vehicle nor to get refund of its price the defect if any having cured.
8. Point Nos. iii & iv. According to the complainant she was compelled to retain the vehicle at the workshop of the 2nd opposite party from 21-09-2011 to 12-10-2012. On the contrary the opposite parties contended that they have redelivered the vehicle on 06-10-2012. We are not to accept the contention of the opposite party since Ext. A5 gate pass goes to show that they have redelivered the vehicle only on 12-10-2011. The opposite parties maintain that the delay in delivery has been caused due to the delay in collecting the defective part from the manufacturer Ext. A7 goes to show that the opposite parties agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
9. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties as to their willingness to pay such an amount to the complainant except the saying “as a justure of good-will”. The above conduct of the 2nd opposite party would show that there is definitely deficiency in service on their part for the delay in delivery of the vehicle on 12-10-2011.
10. In view of the above we are of the firm view that a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is enough to abate the agony of the complainant. This amount is arrived at especially since the complainant had to undertake a journey that was pre-planed with purchase of the new vehicle. The complainant had to approach, this Forum to get her grievances redressed that too for no fault of her’s costs are called for. We fix it at Rs. 2,000/-.
11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2012
