BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,
SHIMLA, H.P
Complaint No. 55 /2009
Presented On: 16.1.2009
Decided On: 27.03.2015
……………………………………………………………………….............
M/s Laiq Ram Chauhan and Sons, Laxmi Bhawan, Near Sanjauli Chowk
Tehsil and District Shimla-171006 Through its partner Sh. Rajeev Chauhan,
S/o Sh. Liaq Ram Chauhan
…..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Tata Motors Ltd, Bombay House 24 Homi Modi Street Mumbai-
400001 through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Hind Motors India Ltd 15, Industrial Area-1 Chandigarh, through its
Managing Director.
3. M/s J.P. Motors Ltd, Solan –Barog Bye Pass Road, Solan, Tehsil and
District Solan H.P through its Managing Director.
…..Opposite parties
………………………………………………………………………………..
CORAM
Sh. K.S.Chandel, President
Smt. Yogita Dutta, Member.
Sh. Subneet Singh Chauhan, Member
………………………………………………………………………………..
For the complainant: Sh. G.R.Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate
No.1
For the Opposite Party: Sh. Anil Tanwar, Advocate
No.2
OP-3 is ex-parte
………………………………………………………………………………..
ORDER:
K.S.CHANDEL,( District Judge) President
The complainant concern M/s Liaq Ram Chauhan and sons
through its partner Rajeev Chauhan has preferred this complaint under
section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
opposite party (hereinafter referred as OPs for short) claiming
deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the OPs. The
complainant has pleaded and claimed that he has purchased the
vehicle Tata Safari Ex. Model 2007 bearing registration No. HP-
03B1487 from the OP -2 vide sale certificate Annexure C-1,
registration certificate Annexure C-2. The complainant has further
claimed the OP-1 is manufacturer and OP -2 is authorized dealer and


sale & service of OP-1 and the OP-3 authorized dealer and service
centre of OP-1. The complainant has claimed that the vehicle started
giving troubles immediately after the purchase within 03 months
being warranty period as this vehicle was breakdown on 26.3.2007
and taken to OP-2 for repair who repaired the same. Thereafter on
20.4.2007 again the vehicle started giving engine problem and was
taken to OP-3 for repair. The complainant has also given the date of
another breakdown and it was taken to OP-3 for repairs on 19.6.2007
and thereafter again in the last week of June 2007 breakdown have
taken place due to hub shaft and the OP-3 lifted the vehicle and
returned the same after 10 days. The complainant has given different
dates to the breakdown of the vehicle as well as giving trouble and
thereafter taken to the OP on 7.9.2007, 29.9.2007 , 7.4.2008,
22.5.2008, 27.5.2008 and 5.6.2008. The complainant has further
claimed that the OP-3 on 12.6.2008 has expressed his inability to
repair the vehicle and advised to take the vehicle to OP-2 and
thereafter vehicle was taken to OP-2 and on 13.6.2008 the engineer
from the OP-1 and OP-2 visited the Op-3 and inspected the vehicle
and found that there was inherent defect in the engine and thereafter
decided to replace the head of the engine and further asked for new
engine from its manufacturing unit at Pune as per Annexure C-3 and
consent letter Annexure C-4. The complainant has claimed that the
OP-2 and OP-3 could not repair the vehicle despite repeated efforts as
it started giving troubles within 03 months from its purchase
frequently and thereafter complainant served with the legal notice to
the OPs Annexure C-5 vide postal receipts Annexure C-6. The
complainant has also claimed that apart from the trouble in the engine
there was also a problem in the C.D. System within warranty period
of the vehicle . The complainant has claimed that despite repeated
repairs of the vehicle during the warranty period there is inherent
manufacturing defect in the vehicle as the OPs have agreed to change
the head of the engine and replace the same with new one and, as such
the OP-2 and 3 manipulated the documents in such a way that they
have not shown the replacement of engine rather shown removed and
installed as per Annexure C-7 and C-8. The complainant has claimed
that the OPs replied the notice vide Annexure C-9 to C-11 in which


the reference is made to notice issued the counsel for the complainant
one Mohd. Sadiq S/o Sh. Mohd. Nizamuddin, R/o Mohalla Hathiya,
Phatak Putlighar, Mirzapur and there is no mention about issue a
notice by the complainant. The complainant has claimed that despite
replacement of engine by the OPs the vehicle is not functioning
properly and giving trouble and thereby taken to the service station
without any improvement and, as such, it amounts to inherent
manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant has
sought for the replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle of the
same make or to refund the value of the vehicle Rs. 8,10,144.99p and
further compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment including
litigation expenses. The complaint is duly supported with an affidavit
of Sh. Rajeev Chauhan partner of the complainant.
 The OP-1 has filed the reply and has taken preliminary
objections qua maintainability as well as denying any deficiency in
service and unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the
complainant and has further taken preliminary objections that this
Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The OP-1
has also taken preliminary objections claiming relationship between
the OPs with the dealers as on principal to principal basis and
thereafter has denied any liability . The OP-1 has also taken
preliminary objections that the vehicle was purchased for commercial
purposes and, as such, the complainant is not a consumer and further
that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.
The OP-1 in its reply on merit has denied any deficiency in service as
well as unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the
complainant . The OP-1 has denied any manufacturing defect in the
vehicle as pleaded and claimed by the complainant and has further
claimed that the vehicle whenever brought to the service station, the
same was found to be in a very deplorable condition as a result of
negligence of the complainant as the complainant has failed to bring
the vehicle for 2nd service due at 10000 K.Ms. The OP-1 has further
claimed that whenever the vehicle was brought to the service station it
was returned after the repair to the satisfaction of the complainant as
the vehicle had covered sufficient mileage when the same was brought


to the service station and there is no manufacturing defect in the
vehicle in view of the coverage of mileage of the vehicle during the
period when it was brought to the service station. The OP-1 further
claimed that the OP-2 and OP-3 have provided the benefits to the
complainant even beyond warranty period as gesture of customer
goodwill and ,as such, the OP-1 has denied the replacement of engine
of the vehicle including recommendation thereof by any engineer as
pleaded and claimed by the complainant and thereby denied any
liability to the complainant and as such has sought for the dismissal
of the complaint.
3. In reply by OP-2 the preliminary objections have been taken
that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose by the complainant
and the annexures attached with the complaint were not supplied by
the complainant. On merits, the OP-2 has pleaded and claimed that
vehicle was brought by the complainant for repair and the same was
repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant within warranty
period . However, the OP-2 has denied any manufacturing defect in
the vehicle as pleaded and claimed as the vehicle is in perfect
running condition despite the fact it was manhandled by the
complainant and thereby the OP-2 has denied any deficiency in
service as well as unfair trade practice as pleaded and claimed by the
complainant and has sought for the dismissal of the complaint. The
reply of the OP-2 is accompanied by an affidavit of Assistant
Manager of the OP-2.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and considered
the record carefully.
5. The complainant has relied upon the sales certificate
Annexure C-1 vide which the vehicle was purchased on 25.1.2007 and
the registration certificate of the vehicle Annexure C-2 and the service
history of the vehicle has been shown in Annexure C-3 and C-4. The
complainant served with the legal notice Annexure C-5 to the OP vide
postal receipt Annexure C-6 . The tax invoice Annexure C-7 and C-8
dated 19.7.2008 and 21.7.2008 have shown the ITASSY
reconditioning engine and VCD monitor replacement during the


warranty period . The OP-2 has replied the notice of the complainant
vide reply Annexure C-9 and the OP-1 replied the notice of the
complainant vide reply Annexure C-10 referring therein the notice
issued on behalf of Mohd. Sadiq S/o Sh. Mohd. Nizamuddin, R/o
Mohalla Hathiya, Phatak Putlighar, Mirzapur Annexure C-10 and C-
11. The complainant has also relied upon tax invoice Annexure C-12
to C-18 for repair of the vehicle including its mileage thereof between
the period 7.4.2009 to 24.7.2010 which pertains to routine repairs
including the repair of the engine as well.
6. The OP-1 has filed an affidavit of M.S. Pradeep Manager
Law of the OP-1 who has claimed in para-16 of the affidavit that in
spite of negligence on the part of the complainant the OP-2 duly
looked into the complaints and addressed the complaint by replacing
the engine of the vehicle with new one and by providing the
warranty benefits despite glaring lapses of the complainant in
maintaining the vehicle which cannot and should not be construed as
any admission on the part of the OPs that the vehicle in question
suffers any manufacturing defects . The affidavit on behalf of the OP-
1 has denied any manufacturing defects of the vehicle taking into
consideration its running condition and coverage of mileage as and
when the same was brought to the service station .
7. The complainant has brought on record the service history
Annexure C-3 whenever the vehicle was taken for repairs /service
before authorized service station and it was found having engine
problem which fact is further verified from Tax invoice Annexure C-
7 and C-8 dated 19.7.2008 and 21.7.2008 and further the admission
in an affidavit on behalf of OP-1 by M.S. Pradeep, Manager Law
who has mentioned in Para-16 of his affidavit claiming replacement
the engine of the vehicle with new one by OP-2 . The authorized
dealer provided warranty benefits despite glaring lapses on the
complainant in maintaining the vehicle including frequent breakdown
and thereafter taken to the service centre as per service history
Annexure C-3 which is not disputed more particularly Tax invoice
Annexure C-7 and C-8 has established that there is manufacturing
defect in the vehicle towards its engine despite the fact that the


vehicle has covered the mileage as mentioned in Tax invoice
Annexure C-12 to C-18 which cannot be absolve the OPs from
manufacturing defect found in the vehicle even by replacing the
engine of the vehicle though the OPs have denied in the complaint
for such replacement but, this fact has been admitted by the OP-1 in
an affidavit filed by M.S. Pradeep Manager Law of OP-1 and thereby
claiming no admission which is contrary to the facts established on
record and, as such, it amounts to deficiency in service as well as
unfair trade practice by the manufacturer as well as by the authorized
dealer and service centre i.e. OP-2 and OP-3 as well. Therefore, the
complaint is allowed and the OP-1 is directed to replace the vehicle
of the complainant of the same make or to refund the value of the
vehicle as per sales certificate Annexure C-1 with interest @9% per
annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.1.2009 till
realization. The OPs No. 1,2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.
25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment including litigation
expenses being joint and several liability. The OPs are directed to pay
this amount within 45 days from the receipt to the copy of the order.
Hence, the present complaint stands allowed. Copy of this order be
supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Announced on this 27th day of March ,2015
( K.S.Chandel)
President
(Yogita Dutta) (Subneet Singh Chauhan)
Member Member
(Mahajan)