IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 15th day of February, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 17/2023 (Filed on 18-01-2023)
Complainant : T.N. Anandavally,
W/o. N.G. Narayanan Nair,
Nellikkunnathu House,
Kadappoor, Vattukulam P.O.
Kottayam - 686587
(Adv. Don Paul, Adv. Harikrishnan Nair
And Adv. Abdul Rashiq A.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties :1. The Managing Director,
Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Ltd.
4th Floor, Ahura Center, 82
Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC
Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400093
(Adv. Prinson Philip and Adv. M.K. Jose)
2. The Manager,
M.K. Motors (Automobile Division
of MPL) (A Division of
Malankara Plantion Ltd.)
Malankara Buildings,
Kodimatha, Kottayam – 686039
(Adv. Siby Chenappady)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.Crux of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant purchased a Tata Harrier XMA 2.0 car from the first opposite party on 31-10-2020 through the second opposite party, authorized sales and service agents of the first opposite party. The purpose of the purchase was primarily for travel during the Covid pandemic, related to her cancer treatment in Mangalore. The vehicle was delivered on 11-11-2020.
In the month of February 2021, the complainant detected abnormalities in brake sounds and gear shifting issues. Reporting the problems to the second opposite party, the vehicle was entrusted to them for repair on 23-3-2021, and though delivered on 25-3-2021, the issues persisted. Subsequent visits on 29-6-2021 and 15-11-2021 failed to completely rectify the problems, leading to further issues and visible damage due to negligence during service.
Due to a persistent vibration issue while moving in slow speed prompted the complainant to entrust the vehicle to the second opposite party on 25-4-2022. Extensive diagnostic efforts led to the replacement of engine. But the problem found to be persisted even with the new engine and after various tests and trials, it was found that the problem is not with the engine but due to faulty alternator and the same was replaced by the second opposite party and delivered on 9-7-2022 after a prolonged period of 75 days. During the test and trials various components, including the engine, torque convertor, gearbox, steering pump, mountings, brakes and A/C compressor were dislodged. During this period, the vehicle was used for R&D purposes, affecting its overall life expectancy.
Within 500 kilometers after delivery, the steering hose failed during a family trip, causing multiple breakdowns, creating fear for long travels. Despite several service visits and second major repairs, major defects related to gear shifting persisted, with the vehicle exhibiting issues such as rust, brake sounds while moving reverse , jerks during gear shifting, engine shivering while applying break, noise from steering, sound from underneath, dent throughout body of the vehicle inside and outside and declining mileage.
Attempts to contact customer care for resolution proved futile. A 75-day breakdown caused significant financial burden, and the complainant’s request for an alternate vehicle during repairs was denied by the second opposite party which leads to additional expenses. Despite a token amount of Rs.30,000/- remitted by the second opposite party, the complainant seeks Rs.15,74,504/- as a refund being the price of the vehicle Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, and an additional Rs.5,00,000/- for losses incurred during the vehicle’s detention.
The complainant alleges deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and negligence on the part of both opposite parties. The complainant seeks an order for
vehicle replacement or refund, compensation for mental agony, inconvenience, and financial losses caused to her.
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appear before the Commission and filed separate.
Version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The relationship between the first and second opposite party is of principal to principal and the first opposite party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the second opposite party. The complainant is not a consumer of the first opposite party. The warranty offered on every vehicle manufactured by the first opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as contained in the operator’s service book. The vehicle purchased by the complainant is of the highest quality and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with its condition and performance. The vehicle was delivered after carrying out the pre delivery inspection by the dealer. All the cars and the vehicles manufactured by the first opposite party are marketed only after the prototype of the vehicle are being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. All the vehicles manufactured in the plant of the first opposite party are put through stringent control systems, quality cheques and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department before being cleared for despatch to the market. Whenever any vehicle reports to workshop for scheduled service or for any repairs the complaints/ grievances of the customer are recorded in the job card which do not imply admission of any defects in the vehicle, but mere representation of the customer’s grievances on the vehicle.
During the period 15 -12- 2020 to 17-2- 2023 the vehicle of the complainant had been taken to the workshop of the second opposite party as well as the authorised workshop of the first opposite party at Mangalore on 12 occasions which included for periodical services and accident repair on one occasion. On all these occasions the alleged complaints voiced by the complainant had been duly taken note of and duly checked. Such of those complaints noticed ,being minor in nature had been attended by the service personal. The alleged complaint with respect to the noise while shifting the gear repeatedly voiced by the complainant was found to be non- existent. On each of these occasions the complainant had been informed this fact and demonstrated with the reference to another car of the same model. It is pertinent to note as on 17-2-2023 the car of the complainant had covered 26,678 kilometres. This further belies the allegation of the complainant that the alleged defects in the car could not be rectified and the same was only on account of its manufacturing defect. On the 12 occasions that the vehicle of the complaint had been taken to the authorised workshops for periodic service for accident repairs attending to alleged complaints the service personal in the concerned workshop had carried out the necessary services or repairs within the shortest period of time. It is submitted in the version that there is no defect, much less any manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The first opposite party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged loss stated to have been suffered by the complainant.
Second opposite party filed version contending as follows:
The complainant did not face any abnormality with break or gear shifting on February 2021. If such a defect was present from the initial stage the complainant would have approached the authorised service centre without any delay. The complainant produced the vehicle only on 23 -3-2021 at 7495 kilometres with complaint on break and hardness in gear shifting. The second free service was done and the complaints were rectified. The vehicle was returned to the complainant on 25-3- 2021. On 29-6 -2021 the complainant approached the second opposite party with the same complaint at 9706 km. Due to the repetition of the same complaint by the complainant the second opposite party placed an order for a new break part and rotor disc to rectify the issue with break. But the second opposite party did not suspect any issue with gear shifting. The vehicle was returned to the complainant on 1-7-2021. After few days the second opposite party got the order placed and informed the complainant to produce the vehicle to replace the brake pad and rotor disc. The complainant produced the vehicle on 15-11-2021 at 15792 kilometres. The scheduled service was done free of charge and under the warranty conditions the brake pad and rotor disc were replaced. The complainant also raised an issue regarding the transmission assembly. The second opposite party explained that while parking the vehicle in a gradient level the vehicle load will be applied to the gears and the gear was engaged during that time. The second opposite party demonstrated the same feature in another TATA Harrier vehicle to the complainant for her satisfaction. Thereafter the vehicle was delivered on 17-11- 2021. During the service works the vehicle sustained minor scratches and marks in its body. The same was rectified by the second opposite party at free of cost. Thereafter the complainant produced the vehicle on 25-4-2022 at 19,887 kilometres raising complaint of vibration while moving in slow speed. The second opposite party as per the process forwarded the complaint to the first opposite party.
The second opposite party conducted swap test with different mechanical parts like engine, suspension, gearbox, compressor, mountings, injectors and pumps etc to rectify the issue raised by the complainant. The issues were rectified by replacing the alternator of the vehicle and the same was replaced under warranty. It is admitted by the second opposite party that the rectification took delay because it was impossible to find out the issue without proper inspection. The allegation regarding R and D with the complainant’s vehicle is false. The second opposite party has not done any service which has reduced or will reduce the life expectancy of the vehicle as alleged. The allegation regarding the failure of steering hose is false. It is clear from the statement of the complainant in the complaint that she produced the vehicle before an unauthorised service dealer, who is not approved by the manufacturer of the vehicle. All the complaints listed in paragraph 10 of the complaint were resolved by the second opposite party at the time of service.
The second opposite party in a humanitarian consideration for the mental stress caused to the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as full and final settlement for the delay caused in delivery of the vehicle after the repair. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the second opposite party.
Authorized agent of the complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exhibit A1 to A8. Jithin K.V. who is the Customer Care Manager of the first opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Jitin M Kurian who is the Legal Manager of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Exhibits B1 to B4. Report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Exhibit C1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a TATA Harrier XM A 2.0 Car which is manufactured by the first opposite party through the second opposite party on 31-10- 2020. Exhibit A1 which is a tax invoice issued by the second opposite party on 31-10- 2020 proves that the complainant had paid Rs.15,74,504/- to the second opposite party being the price of the said vehicle. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer of the first and second opposite parties as defined in section 2(7)(i)of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The specific case of the complainant is that from its very inception the vehicle was showing various complaints including break sound, issue in gear shifting, vibration of the vehicle at slow speeds and noise on the steering. According to the complainant these defects were due to the inherent manufacturing
defect of the vehicle and due to the poor workmanship of the second opposite party.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties stating that there is no manufacturing defect on the vehicle. Exhibit B4 is the service history of the vehicle from 3-9 -2021 to 5-5 2022. On going through Exhibit B4 we can see that while on the service at 7495 km on 23-3-2021 the complainant raised the complaint regarding the gear shifting hardness to the second opposite party. It is further proved by Exhibit B4 that on 30-6-2021 at the mileage of 9706 kilometres the complainant voiced the complaint of break sound and vibration. It is admitted by the second opposite party at this time they have replaced the brake pad and rotor disc to cure the defect. On going through the exhibit B4 we can see that on 15-11-2021 while the service at mileage of 15,792 kilometres the opposite party replaced the break pad on each side to cure the sound from brake and removed the transmission and installed the same to cure the gear shifting hardness to reverse at slop. It is further proved by Exhibit B4 that the complainant entrusted the vehicle with the second opposite party on 5-5-2022 at a mileage of 19,887 with a complaint of vehicle jerking in first and reverse gear. On going through the exhibit B4 we can see that at this time the second opposite party has removed and reinstalled the transmission, the rear suspension of the vehicle dismantled and assembled with the new parts. They further renewed the engine support A,B and C Mount, removed and reinstalled the brake discs on each side and rear brake drum, fuel rail assembly removed and installed. Steering pump high pressure pump, r/r fuel injector and Automatic cable transmission were removed and reinstalled. At this time the engine was removed and reinstalled. It is admitted by the second opposite party that at this time the alternator of the vehicle was replaced.
In order to prove her case, the complainant applied for an appointment of an Expert Commissioner and consequently Jayaprakash B who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector is appointed as an Expert Commissioner by this Commission. The report of the Expert Commissioner is marked as Exhibit C1. The Expert Commissioner in C1 reported that slight whistling noise is heard from the rear wheels when the vehicle applies the brake in reverse direction. This complaint was raised as per the service invoice dated 5- 5- 2022 but has not been resolved yet. He further reported that abnormal jerking and engine jerking after stopping the vehicle in gradient level and selecting the gear in the parking position and applying the handbrake to release from the parking gear . The screw attaching the door pads to the bottom of all four doors of the vehicle and the bolt attaching the engine mounting to the bottom of the door are corroded. The engine room of the vehicle was checked and scratches were found in the upper cross member and upper struck position . These scratches may occur during engine maintenance or gearbox maintenance.
Abnormal engine jerking when releasing parking gear in a gradient level is caused by variation in engine ideal rpm, sensor failure, electronic control system failure, and electrical system failure. According to him as the vehicle is two years and seven months old, has undergone several repairs since 2021 and has driven 29756 kms, it is impossible to say whether these faults are manufacturing defects.
Expert commissioner reported that as per invoice dated 5-5-2022 the vehicle had undergone a major repair and the transmission was removed and then reinstalled. On inspection of engine room it was found that when the gearbox was installed after the major repair and the wiring harness was not tagged to the firewall. The Commissioner has also reported that after driving the vehicle for 113 km, the mileage of the vehicle is 11.88 km.
On the evaluation of the above discussed evidence we can see that the defects of the vehicle persisting even after the major repair works. The non resolving of the defects which were raised by the purchaser from the initial days of the purchase after carrying out several service and a major repair work after dismantling the major parts of the vehicle clearly leads to the conclusion that the vehicle has inherent manufacturing defects. Therefore we are of the opinion that the first and second opposite parties committed unfair trade practise by selling a vehicle to the complainant which has inherent manufacturing defects.
Exhibit A3 is the warranty terms and conditions which was issued by the first opposite party. On going through Exhibit A3 we can see that the first opposite party offered a warranty for the vehicle for a period of two years from the date of sale of the car or a mileage of 1,00,000 kilometre whichever occurs earlier. Here in case on hand the complainant raised the complaint from initial days of purchase of the vehicle and exhibit B4 proves that the complaint was persisting after the service which was carried out on 5-5-2022 at a mileage of 19,887 kilometres. On going through the Exhibit A3 we can see that first opposite party is under an obligation to repair or replace the defective parts of the car at free of charge during the warranty period. As discussed earlier the first opposite party who is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the second opposite party who is the authorised agent of the first opposite party did not cure the defect of the vehicle under the warranty as offered by the first opposite party. The act of the opposite parties of not curing the defects of the vehicle during the warranty period as offered by them amounts to unfair trade practise and deficiency in service.
It is admitted by the second opposite party that there was a delay of 72 days to deliver the vehicle after carrying out the repair works. According to the second opposite party it is impossible to find out the issue without proper inspection. They had not given any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay caused in diagnosing the defect of the vehicle and to rectify the same. According to the complainant the purpose of the purchase was primarily for travel during the Covid pandemic, related to her cancer treatment in Mangalore. It is admitted by the second opposite party that Rs.30,000 was paid to the complainant as compensation for the delay caused in repairing the vehicle.
It is proved by Exhibit A2 that the complainant was under the treatment at Mangalore Institute of Oncology from 21-5-2018 to 6-6-2023. No doubt not giving a courtesy vehicle to the complainant is deficiency on the part of the second opposite party. The handing over of a meagre amount of Rs.30,000/- is not sufficient to compensate the hardship faced by the complainant.
On the evaluation of the above discussed evidence and considering the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complaint is to be allowed and we pass the following order.
- We here by direct opposite parties to replace the Tata Harrier XMA 2.0 car bearing registration number KL-67-C1833 with a brand new one within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,74,504/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Seventy four thousand five hundred and four only) to the complainant with 9% interest from 18-1-2023 that is the date on which this complaint is filed till realisation.
- We here by direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards the compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practise on the part of the opposite parties.
- We hereby direct the second opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation to the complainant for the loss caused to the complainant due to the delay caused in carrying out the repair work of the vehicle.
The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the compensation amounts shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of February, 2024.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Copy of tax invoice dtd.31-10-2020 by 1st opposite party
A2- Copy of case sheet from 21-05-18 to 06-06-2023 by Mangalore Institute of Oncology
A3 – Copy of warranty – terms and conditions of Tata Harrier vehicle
A4 – Copy of e-mail communication dtd.16-06-2022
A4(a) – Copy of e-mail communication dtd.26-08-2022
A5- Copy of e-mail communication dtd.29-06-2022
A6-Copy of tax invoice dtd.19-07-2022 by Tata Motors
A7 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.30-07-2022
A8 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.03-02-2023
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of customer satisfaction / deliver note signed by the complainant
dtd.17-11-2021
B2 - Copy of customer satisfaction / deliver note signed by the complainant
dtd.09-07-2022
B3 – Copy of RTGS application and cheque dtd.03-08-2022
B4- Copy of service history from 03-09-2021 to 05-05-2022
Commission Report
C1 – Commission report prepared by Jayaprakash B. MVI
By Order
Assistant Registrar
