Delhi

East Delhi

CC/843/2013

ABHINAV ANAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  843/13

 

Shri Abhinav Anand

S/o Dr. Anand Prakash Agarwal

R/o House No. 509, 2^nd Floor

Sector-1, Vasundhara

Ghaziabad, UP.                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Tata Motors Limited

(Through its Managing Director)

305, South City – I, Signature Tower- B

3^rd Floor, N.H. – 8, DLF City – I

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001

 

2. Him Motors (P) Limited

(Through its Managing Director)

    338, F.I.E. Patparganj Industrial Area

    Delhi – 110 092.    

 

3. Srinathji Motors Private Limited

(Through its Managing Director)

20/10A, Sahibabad Industrial Area

Site-IV, Opposite Wave Multiplex

Ghaziabad (UP) – 201 010                                              ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 08.10.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 18.07.2017

Judgment Passed on: 20.07.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Abhinav Anand against Tata Motors Limited (OP-1), Him Motors (P) Ltd. (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that on 22.08.2012, the complainant purchased a Tata Indigo e-CS for a sum of Rs. 6,10,000/- bearing chassis no., MAT601465CPG45025 & Engine No. 14CRAIL08GXYW24958 vide receipt no. 4189 dated 22.08.2012 from I.S. Motors (P) Ltd. having its showroom at E-17, Old Industrial Area, Haridwar, Uttrakhand, authorized dealer of Tata Motors Limited    (OP-1).  The complainant got his car insured from Tata Motors Insurance, which was valid from 22.08.2012 to 21.08.2013.  The said car was got registered on 03.10.2012 from Transport Department, Uttrakhand, which allotted registration no. UK 08 Z 4097. 

          On 26.02.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant took his car for the regular third free service at the service centre of Shrinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), which was authorized service centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1).  The meter reading of the said car of the complainant was 9273 Kms.  It has been stated that as per the policy adopted by service centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) including Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) & Srinathji Motors Private Limited  (OP-3), no customer was allowed to enter in the workshop.  Mr. Karun who was appointed as supervisor of the said car, informed the complainant that the car of the complainant will be delivered at around 4.30 p.m. 

          It has further been stated that as per the ‘Owner’s Manual & Service Book’, the ‘Fuel Filter Element’ of the car of the complainant has to be changed at the time of regular third free service.  The officials of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) convinced the complainant to take the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) and on their initiation, the complainant took the AMC from Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) for 20,000 Kms. or one year (whichever is earlier) for the car vide receipt no. 14566 dated 26.02.2013 for an amount of Rs. 5,788/-.  The Annual Maintenance Contract was taken by the complainant for proper service and genuine and original spare parts to be provided by OP.  When on 26.02.2013, the car was handed over to the complainant by Mr. Karun, he told the complainant that the regular third free service has been done and all the necessary parts including Fuel Filter Element have been replaced as per the service schedule of the Owner’s Manual and Service Book. 

          It has further been stated that on 17.05.2013, at around          10 a.m., car of the complainant started showing the starting problem and it took 3-4 full ignition-self to start the same.  On 18.05.2013 at around 10 a.m., the car did not get start despite several attempts made by the complainant.  The complainant called the customer care centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) and informed about the same.  They registered the complaint and allotted complaint no. 18957148354.  About 40 minutes of the registration of the complaint, one of the mechanics of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) visited the premises of the complainant who inspected the car and resolved the complaint.  He advised the complainant to take the car to the authorized service centre.  On 19.05.2013 at around 9.30 a.m., the complainant took his car to Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) where their officials informed the complainant that some software of the said car of the complainant needs to be updated which was not available and asked the complainant to take his car to Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2), which was also authorized service centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1). 

          He immediately, on the same day, took his car to Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) to resolve the problem of the car.  Mr. Rajiv Bhati of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) was appointed as supervisor of the car who took the car in his possession.  At that time, the meter reading was 15,268 Kms., which was covered under the warranty, which was 24 months from the date of sale of car or 75,000 Kms. (whichever occurs earlier).  Mr. Rajiv Bhati of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) informed the complainant that the Fuel Injectors of the said car were damaged due to which there was starting problem.  When he enquired about the reason he was told that some committee of engineers will visit the service centre of Him Motors (P) Limited     (OP-2) who will inspect the car and will assess the reason.  He was also told that Mr. Shakeel of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) will be the supervisor of the car as he has to go for training. 

          On 21.05.2013 at around 3.30 p.m., Mr. Shakeel of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) informed the complainant that the said committee has inspected the car and the Fuel Injectors were damaged due to:

1. that Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) has installed a local fuel filter element instead of original and genuine fuel filter element at the time of regular third free service and
2. the said local fuel filter element was not even installed properly by Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) at the time of regular third free service of the said car.

         

          The complainant was further informed by Mr. Shakeel of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) that due to these reasons, the warranty of the said car of the complainant has been waived off.  He further informed that the complainant has to make full payment for the said fuel injectors and other spare parts and labour.  Since there was no fault of the complainant, he requested Mr. Shakeel of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) not to waive off the warranty of the said car and to change the said fuel injectors and other spare parts and labour to resolve the starting problem.  Mr. Shakeel informed the complainant to approach the higher officials, which he did, but of no avail. 

          The complainant was asked to pay the bill amount of             Rs. 49,830/-, which was assured to be refunded within a week.  The complainant paid the said amount of Rs. 49,830/- on 27.05.2013 and took his car.  When he asked OP to refund the said amount, Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) refused to refund the same on 05.06.2013.  On the same day, the complainant visited the police station Madhu Vihar to register a FIR against the OP, but officials of police station refused to receive the complaint.,  On 06.06.2013, the complainant sent his complaint vide Regd. A.D. to the SHO, Police Station Madhu Vihar with copy to Dy. Commissioner (East) and Commissioner of Police. 

          He also sent a Legal Notice on 06.06.13, which was not replied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for direction to OPs to refund the bill amount of Rs. 49,830/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 27.05.2013, Rs. 50,000/- compensation towards harassment and mental agony and 1,00,000/- towards future loss that may be suffered by him due to the damage of the fuel injectors, Rs. 1,00,000/- for the loss of re-sale value of the said car and Rs. 15,000/- for the legal expenses.

 

 

3.       M/s. Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) in their WS have taken various objections stating that their relationship were on principle to principle basis, for the act of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), they cannot be held liable.  They being the manufacturer, were liable only for deficiency in product and have been impleaded without any basis.  They have also stated that Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) cannot be held liable for any independent act or omission committed by other OPs.  The complainant have not approached the forum with clean hands.  The fuel filter was fitted improper resulting in damage to injectors.  They have submitted that as per clause 5 of terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof was repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with their standard repair procedure etc. etc.    It has also been stated that the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions which he has signed.  The complainant have raised issues which involves questions of facts as well as law which needs trial.  They have denied other facts also as they pertain to   OP-2 & 3. 

          In the written statement, filed by M/s. Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2), they have also taken various objections such as no deficiency on the part of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2); complainant not approached the consumer forum with clean hands; complainant was guilty of gross misconduct and concealing material facts; failed to specify any defect in the service rendered by Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and complainant not impleading M/s. Lucas Indian Service Limited, the manufacturer of fuel injectors etc. 

          They have further stated that service schedule have been laid down by Tata Motors and non adherence to the service schedule by the owner of the car renders the warranty void.  The complainant failed to get the second free service of the vehicle done within the stipulated mileage and period which rendered warranty void.  The defect detected was in the fuel injectors as the said fuel injection equipment was supplied by M/s. Lucas Indian Service Limited and it was their service engineer, who has to inspect the car and approve the replacement thereof under warranty.  They were necessary party. 

          It has further been stated that the fuel injectors were replaced at the insistence of the complainant.  The complainant was informed by the senior functionary that the fuel injectors have been damaged due to fitment of spurious fuel filter and there was no possibility of covering the same under warranty as usage of any spurious part as the effect of warranty becoming void.  The rejection of claim of replacement of fuel injectors of the car of the complainant under warranty by M/s. Lucas Indian Service limited, Him Motors Private limited (OP-2) were left with no option to replace the same under chargeable basis and no assurance whatsoever was given by any of the functionaries for refund of the amount.  Other facts have also been denied.

          M/s. Srinathji Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3) have stated that complaint was false, vague and unjust; there was no cause of action; complainant was not consumer; there was no consumer dispute between the complainant and the respondent; there was no deficiency on the part of OP and the complainant have not come before the forum with clean hands.  They have denied that they ever convinced the complainant to take Annual Maintenance Contract, but complainant himself was eager for the same and deposited the amount after enquiring from them.  They have repaired the vehicle to the best of the satisfaction of the complainant and old fuel filter element was replaced with genuine fuel filter element. 

          They have denied that fuel injectors of the vehicle of the complainant were damaged due to installation of local fuel element instead of genuine and original fuel filter element.  They have denied that fuel filter element was not properly installed.  They have no source or access of such parts except the genuine one.  They have further stated that if any committee was initiated for finding the reason for damaging the fuel injectors, the report of the committee was manipulated by the complainant and such report was false, vague and unjust.  They have stated that they have installed the original and genuine fuel filter and the allegation of the complainant were motivated false, vague and unjust.  They have denied other facts.

4.       The complainant in his rejoinder to the written statement of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited    (OP-3) has controverted the pleas made in the written statement and has reasserted his pleas made in the complaint.       

5.       In support of its case, the complainant has examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of receipt bearing no. 4189 dated 22.08.2012 (Ex.CW1/1),  copy of the new vehicle delivery gate pass bearing no. 4069 dated 22.08.2012 (Ex.CW1/2), copy of certificate cum policy schedule dated 22.08.2012 (Ex.CW1/3), copy of registration certificate dated 03.10.2012 issued by transport department (Ex.CW1/4), copy of Owner’s Manual & Service Book (Ex.CW1/5), copy of receipt bearing no. 14566 dated 26.02.2013 (Ex.CW1/6), copy of payment receipt dated 26.02.2013 (Ex.CW1/7), copy of Annual Maintenance Contract (Ex.CW1/8), copy of receipt bearing no. 14577 dated 26.02.2013 (Ex.CW1/9), copy of retail invoice dated 26.02.2013 (Ex.CW1/10), copy of retail invoice dated 27.05.2013 (Ex.CW1/11), copy of complaint alongwith postal receipts (Ex.CW1/12), copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2013 alongwith postal receipts (Ex.CW1/13), printout dated 17.01.2014 of the website page of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) ((Ex.CW1/R1), print out dated 17.01.2014 of the website page of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) (Ex.CW1/R2), printout of the mobile bill for the period from 03.05.2013 to 02.06.2013 of the wife of the complainant (Ex.CW1/RA) and printout of the mobile bill for the period from 03.06.2013 to 02.07.2013 of the wife of the complainant (Ex.CW1/RB).

          Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) have examined Shri M.K. Bipin Das, Manager (Law), who have deposed on affidavit.  He has stated in his affidavit that complainant have alleged fitment of local fuel filter by Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3).  The relationship between the OPs was on principal to principal basis.  For the act of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), M/s. Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) cannot be held liable.  They were the manufacturer.  He has further deposed that the complainant have not disclosed that he replaced the fuel filter from outside local market.  The fuel filter was fitted improper resulting to damage to injectors.  He has made reference to Clause 5 of terms and conditions of warranty, which was to the effect that if the vehicle or any part of thereof was repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with their standard repair procedure or by any person other than their authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centers, the warranty was not applied. 

          He has further deposed that as per the record maintained by Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), the vehicle was brought on 30.03.2013 at 9573 Kms. for third service.  After carrying out third service, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant.  At that time, the original fuel filter was replaced and local filter was fitted by the complainant from outside local market.   

          No evidence has been filed on behalf of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), though, they were given opportunity to file the same.  Since, they stopped appearing during the proceedings, their right to file the evidence was closed.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) and have perused the material placed on record.  The contest in the complaint has been between the complainant Abhinav Anand and Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) as after filing their reply by Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), they have not filed their evidence. 

          It has been argued on behalf of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) that for the acts of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), they were not liable as their relationship was of principal to principal basis.  They have further argued that Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) was manufacturer and there was no deficiency in the vehicle itself. 

          In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) have relied upon a judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jaswant Singh Vs. Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Revision pttition NO. 2777 of 2007) and Jaswant Singh Vs. M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Revision petition No. 2778 of 2007), where it has been laid down that a dealer was not an agent of manufacturer as the cars were sold on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis.  It further laid down that manufacturer cannot be held liable for any acts of omission and commission including deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of dealer.

          On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. (OP-1) was liable for the acts of M/s. Him Motors (P) Ltd. (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3).  He has further argued that warranty of the car was waived off by OP-2 without any basis. 

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the evidence on record.  If the evidence on record, as deposed by the complainant itself, is looked into, he has stated in his testimony that Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) was a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling automobile in India and abroad.  Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) was an authorized service centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) was also an authorized service centre of Tata Motors Limited (OP-1).  Thus, the fact remains that Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) was a manufacturer and Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) were their authorized service ctnres.  From his evidence, it has come on record that he took the car to Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) for its third service.  He also took Annual Maintenance Contract at their instance.  The third service was done by Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) where fuel filter element was changed.  When the complainant faced ignition problem, he took the vehicle to Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) where the vehicle was not attended due to software problem and the complainant took the vehicle to Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) where he was told that the fuel injectors of the said car were damaged due to which there was starting problem.  The vehicle was also got checked by a committee which reported that Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) has installed a local fuel filter element instead of original and genuine fuel filter element at the time of third free service of the said car.  The said fuel filter element was not properly installed.

          Thus, from the testimony of the complainant, it is evident that it is Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) who did the regular third free service of the car and changed the fuel filter element and installed the local fuel filter element.  When Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) have changed the fuel filter and installed local fuel filter which was the case of the complainant himself and it has came to the knowledge of the complainant when he took his vehicle to Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) who got the vehicle inspected by a committee which reported the same.  Their act of waiving the warranty was justified.  Therefore, their cannot be any liability of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) for the acts of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3). 

          Similarly, for the acts of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) cannot be held liable as their relationship with Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) was on principal to principal basis.  Thus, for the acts and omissions of Him Motors (P) Limited (OP-2) and Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) was not accountable as they were the manufacturers.  No manufacturing defect have been pointed out by the complainant for which Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) could have been made liable. 

          The judgement relied upon by Ld. Counsel for Tata Motors Limited (OP-1) helps them.  Thus, from the evidence on record, it is Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), who were solely responsible for their acts, therefore, there has been deficiency on the part of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3).  When there has been deficiency on the part of Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3), certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and agony. 

          In view of the above, it is ordered that Srinathji Motors Private Limited (OP-3) shall pay an amount of Rs. 49,830/- with 9% interest from the date of institution of the complaint.  Further, we award compensation for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony which includes the cost of litigation also.  No other damages can be awarded as they are too remote.   

          This order be complied within a period of 45 days. If not complied, the amount of compensation shall also carry interest         @ 9% p.a. from the date of order. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                          President