Kerala

Idukki

CC/126/2016

Jayan 10/598 - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Marketing and Customer Support - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Lissy M M

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 13/04/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26^th day of December 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

 

CC NO. 126/2016

Between

Complainant : Mr.Jayan J 10/598,

Nallathanni Estate, Munnar P.O,

Munnar, Idukki District - 685 612.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Tata Motors,

Marketting and Customer Support,

8^th Floor world trade centre, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai 400005,

Represented by its Managing Director.

2 . Concord Motors (India )Ltd.,

Nettoor Maradu Cochin, Ernakulam P.O.,

Pin – 682 040, Represented by its Managing Director.

(Both by Adv: Babichan V.George)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is a driver by profession. On 24/10/2014, complainant purchased a Tata Indica e CS vehicle from the second opposite party after paying Rs.4,77,288/-. The vehicle was duly registered as No.KL/68/4111. At the time of purchase, the second opposite party assured the complainant that the vehicle is in good condition and is free from any defects. Opposite parties provide 18 months warranty to this vehicle. The complainant used the vehicle as a Taxi. Immediately after the purchase, the vehicle showed several complaints such as low pulling, the front door, dickey door and head light assembly were found

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 

defective and the same was rectified by the opposite parties on 03/01/15. on 09/06/15 the vehicle at 25965 kms were taken to the second opposite party with a lot of complaints such as defective functioning of the door motors and defective glass runners, the head lamp etc., were replaced under warranty. On 30239 kms the door assembly unit motor of the front right door and the rubber beadings were replaced under warranty for the second time within 5000 kms.

 

The complainant further averred that at 48417 kms the complainant again entrusted the vehicles to the second opposite party for repairing gear box, ball bearing oil seal etc. All these defects are rectified under warranty. For repairing these work opposite parties kept the vehicle in the workshop for 20 days. Immediately after this the vehicle again taken to the second opposite party for complaint with its pump. During the recurring repair the complainant kept the vehicle idle and hence, he failed to remit the vehicle loan installments properly. This caused much mental agony to the complainant.

 

Complainant further averred that he invested the money for getting adequate value and good quality product and services from the opposite parties. But opposite parties failed to render quality product and service, hence the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defects of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. The recurring defects of the vehicle is due to its manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to cure the defect of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and further direct them to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version by admitting the sale of the vehicle in question. Opposite parties further contented that the car was reported for the first time on 24/11/14 at 1486 Kms for the first free service. Then on 03/01/15 at 5451 Kms, the car was reported for its second free service along with minor issue of glass pops out, setting of dickey door and front headlight repair was carried out during the general check up of the car.

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

Thereafter on 06/02/15, the vehicle reported at for 3^rd free service with a complaint of engine oil leakage wherein standard checks were done and the purported complaint was addressed by checking external oil loss under warranty.

 

Then the car was reported on 27/04/15 at 20,169 Kms for forth free service apart from the problems of glass pops out, under carriage noise and left headlight water entry were rectified under warranty. Thereafter on 09/06/15 the car reported in its 25,965 Kms for issue of glass pops out, under carriage noise, fog condensation in exterior light lenses and starting problem were resolved under warranty. Thereafter on 05/08/15 the car was reported at 30,239 Kms for scheduled service along with minor complaints of engine light comes on check, poor pick up and glass door operation hard, there complainant were addressed and rectified under warranty. Later at 40,474 Kms car was reported on 17/11/15 for 40,000 Kms service, besides with the issues of engine lights comes on, under carriage noisy and excessive smoke. These issues were attended by replacing front lower wishbone and cleaning carbon canister etc., on paid basis.

 

On around 48,417 Kms, the car was reported with the complaints of engine noisy and gear box noisy and was repaired by changing gears, ball bearings, oil seal under warranty.

 

Opposite parties further contented that the car again reported to them on 18/02/16 at 50, 418 Kms for 50,000 Kms service. The problem of check engine lights was forwarded to the workshop of the second opposite party at Cochin for redressal. The complainant has once again denied to carry out jobs of wheel alignment, wheel balancing, break cleaning etc., despite informed by the workshop. Thereafter on 29/02/16 the vehicle was reported for the complaint of poor pick up, engine light on and insufficient a/c cooling etc., it was attended by replacing fuel injection pump and injection nozzle under warranty.

 

Lastly the car was reported on 23/05/16 at 60,369 Kms for 60,000 Kms service besides the complaints of squeaking noise from front wheel, screeching noise from engine, cold starting problem , engine coolant leakage and engine light comes on. The purported complaints were attended by replacing timing belt, auto tensioner, contact bearing, gasket water pump etc., under warranty.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

The opposite parties further contented that, the service adviser on the job cards and steps taken for resolution of the complaints raised by the complainant would establish that the complainant were only running complaints and recommended services which required to be attended for normal usage and improper maintenance of the car. Whatever grievances were brought to the notice of the workshop by the complainant were attended promptly and swiftly by the service authorities under warranty. Hence there cannot be any question of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service meriting refund of the price of the car.

 

The opposite parties further contented that for proving any manufacturing defect no expert evidence is produced by the complainant and hence this allegation is baseless and misconceived.

 

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to Ext.P9 were marked. Ext.P1 is the tax invoice dated 24/10/14, Ext.P2 is the letter from the second opposite party, Ext.P3 is the copy of driving license, Ext.P4 is the copy of vehicle permit, Ext.P5 is the tax invoice dated 03/01/15, Ext.P6 is the tax invoice dated 09/06/15, Ext.P7 is the tax invoice dated 05/08/15, Ext.P8 is the tax invoice dated 05/02/16, Ext.P9 is the tax invoice dated 29/02/16.

 

From the opposite parties side Mr.Ramesh C.Menon head of the second opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 to Ext.R6 were marked. Ext.R1(s) are the tax invoice which are marked from the side of the complainant, Ext.R2 and Ext.R3 are the service history of the vehicle in question, Ext.R4 is the job slip dated 26/11/16, Ext.R5 is the E-Mail print out, Ext.R6 is the tax invoice dated 24/10/14.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

(Cont.....5)

 

-5-

 

 

The Point:- It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a Tata India car from the second opposite party on 24/10/14 by paying an amount of Rs.4,77,288/-. At the time of purchase the opposite parties provided 18 months warranty from 24/10/14 to 23/05/16. Complainant approached the second opposite party with the vehicle in 13 times, out of this visit more than 5 times are of free service periodical check up and servicing and some visits are for free check ups and some visits were for 40,000, 50,000, 64,000 Kms periodical check ups. All these visits complainant pointed minor as well as major defects and all these defects are rectified by the second opposite party under warranty and free of costs. Complainant has no allegation against the second opposite party that, opposite parties has failed to cure the defects of the vehicle or the second opposite party unnecessary charged for the repair.

 

 

Almost all the defect which is pointed out by the complainant in his complaint of running repairs, even though complainant alleged that these defects are manufacturing defect ,no majour defect is highlighted in the complaint. It is also pertinent to note within a span 18 months, the vehicle was covered more than 60,000 Kms. That means he is plying the vehicle an average 3000 Kms per month. At the time of giving evidence on 03/10/17 the complainant deposed that the odometer of the vehicle shows 1,11,000 Kms ie, within 3 years, he plied the vehicle this much kilometer. So the alleged defects, the complainant stated in his petition is normal and no evidence is adduced by the complainant any of the defect he pointed out in manufacturing defect. More over no expert evidence is produced to convince the Forum that the vehicle in question having any of the defect is narrated in the complaint and such defect is a manufacturing defect.

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....6)

 

 

-6-

Hence on the basis of above discussion, Forum is of a considered view that complainant miserably failed to prove the case with clear and cogent evidence and hence the complaint dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26^th day of December, 2019.

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - J.Jayan

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Ramesh C. Menon

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The tax invoice dated 24/10/14

Ext.P2 - The letter from the second opposite party

Ext.P3 - The copy of driving license

Ext.P4 -The copy of vehicle permit

Ext.P5 -The tax invoice dated 03/01/15

Ext.P6 -The tax invoice dated 09/06/15

Ext.P7 -The tax invoice dated 05/08/15

Ext.P8 -The tax invoice dated 05/02/16

Ext.P9 -The tax invoice dated 29/02/16

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1(s) -The tax invoice which are marked from the side of the complainant, Ext.R2 and Ext.R3 -The service history of the vehicle in question

Ext.R4 -The job slip dated 26/11/16

Ext.R5 -The E-Mail print out

Ext.R6 -The tax invoice dated 24/10/14.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT