STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Chetan Gill son of Sh. Rajwant Singh Gill resident of House No.103, Phase-7, Mohali.

….…Appellant/Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.        Tata Motors Limited, through its Chairman, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001.

2.        Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, 5th Floor, 1 Forbes, 1 Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg Mumbai 400001 through its Deputy General Manager.

3.        M/s Joshi Autos Zone Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

..…Respondents/Opposite Parties

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by: 

Sh.H.S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh.V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                        --

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant( now appellant) as under:-

“Therefore, relying on the contents of the report as well as the submissions made by the complainant and the OPs, we are of the opinion that the OPs be directed to rectify all the defects present in the vehicle by repairing/replacing the parts as per the report of the Engineering College within one month of receipt of this order.  In case they are unable to rectify the defects as per the report, they may then refund the value of the vehicle paid by the complainant after deducting depreciation @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of this order.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy failing which they shall pay the awarded amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the payment is actually made to the complainant”.

2.                The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant had expressed the desire to the Opposite Parties, for purchase of a Tata Indigo CS car.  However, the Opposite Parties impressed upon him, that Dicor engine was more superior than the older TDI engine. It was stated that, on their recommendation, the complainant had bought a car vide invoice 10.6.2008 for Rs.4,80,573/- from Opposite Party No.3. The car was provided with a warranty till 11.12.2009.  It was further stated that the car started giving trouble from the very first month of purchase and, consequently, the same was taken to the workshop of the Opposite Parties for major repairs, a number of times, as detailed under:-

1)  15.9.2008 with the problem of excessive engine noise and clutch problem;

2)  23.12.2008 with the problem of excessive noise caused due to faulty fan/alternator belt;

3)  7.4.2009 the Camshaft drive belt alongwith belts broke down.  Major repairs were carried out on the car on 8.4.2009 when the Camshaft drive belt alongwith other belts were replaced.

It was further stated that after the car was repaired, the complainant found that many loud and abnormal noises, were being emitted, from the engine in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear.  The car also started stalling when the AC was switched on. It was further stated that the complainant also lodged a complaint with the Tata helpline because Opposite Party No.3 by now was refusing to inspect the car engine. It was further stated that after the complaint was registered the car was accepted by Opposite Party No.3 for inspection but it could not either identify or rectify the problem. The car was, thereafter, handed over to him, as fully repaired but when it was taken for test drive, the complainant realized that all the same problems still persisted. It was further stated that when the complainant took up the matter with the Company officials of Tata Motors (OPs) again, Opposite Party No.3, replaced the full set of pulleys, timing/fan belts and a number of other parts. Again more parts of the car were changed on 21.8.2009. It was further stated that the problem, in the car was, in fact, an abnormality with the engine which constituted a major manufacturing defect. It was further stated that, on road, the car had jerky movements, and a persistent clutch problem.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sold a defective product, which was not working properly, and was continuously causing him(complainant) mental pain and agony.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                In their written reply, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 stated that all the contentions of the complainant were unjustified and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the complainant had not produced any expert opinion, or evidence, to prove the defects pointed out by him, in the same.  It was further stated that the averments of the complainant stood contradicted, by the job cards, which did not mention any abnormal noise or defect in the vehicle.  It was further stated that whenever the complainant visited the workshop, the vehicle was fully repaired to his satisfaction, as per the conditions of warranty. It was further stated that the vehicle had already covered over 20000 kms, and the faults, if any, were because of excessive use of the same which according to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, were due to the vehicle being used for commercial purpose. It was further stated that the engineers of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, checked the vehicle properly, and the high engine noise alleged by the complainant was perfectly normal.  It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                In its written reply, Opposite Party No.3, admitted the sale of the vehicle, to the complainant. It was denied that the complainant was compelled to buy the vehicle, in question.  In fact, the vehicle was bought, by the complainant, of his own choice.  It was stated that whenever the complainant brought the vehicle to Opposite Party No.3, for service, his complaint was well attended to, as per the conditions of warranty. It was denied that the vehicle had broken down, due to any manufacturing defect, or that there was any engine noise, in the same.  It was further stated that the vehicle was checked, many times, and found to be okay.  It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.                The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle, in question, started giving problems, from the date of its purchase and the same was frequently taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.3, but in spite of that the defects could not be rectified by it, as was evident from the invoices/bills Annexures C-4 to C-6, C-8, C-9, C-12, C-16, C-20, C-21, C-22, C-29, C-30, A-4, A-5 issued by the repairers. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to appreciate the judgments, rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission and the Hon’ble Apex Court and, thus, failed to straightaway direct the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the vehicle, but erroneously directed them to rectify the defects, in the car, which being inherent “manufacturing defects” could not be rectified by them by their repeated futile efforts. However, we do not find any substance, in this submission, because a fair opportunity was required to be given to the Opposite Parties for the rectification of defects, in the car, and the same was rightly granted by the District Forum. Thus, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

10.             The Counsel for the appellant, further submitted that the direction of the District Forum, that, in case of non-rectification of the defects, in the car, by the Opposite Parties, as per the report, they may refund the price of the vehicle, paid by the complainant, after deducting depreciation @ 10% per annum, from the date of purchase till the date of order, was erroneous and unjustified, because the same was given by overlooking the fact that the defects, in the car, started occurring within one month of its purchase.  We find force, in this submission, because the said car was purchased on 10.06.2008, and the defects started occurring within one month of its purchase. The factum of occurrence of the defects was affirmed by the report of the Head of Mechanical Engineering Department of the Punjab Engineering College and University of Technology, Chandigarh in his report dated 27.08.2010, duly detailed in para 8 of the impugned order. Since the defects occurred, in the newly purchased car, within a few months of its purchase, hence, the direction of deduction of depreciation @ 10% per year, as ordered by the District Forum, is unsustainable. Here we may also refer to a case titled as M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. M/s Affiliated East West Press (P) Ltd. & Anr.-2008(1) CPC 269, in which under similar circumstances,  in para 29, it was held as under ;-

“29.  It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the car was used by the complainant for more than one year and, therefore, appropriate deduction in the amount payable to the Complainant be made.  In our view, this submission cannot be accepted because the complainant has also invested money for purchase of the said car and on the same amount he has lost interest.  The car was required to be used after its repeated repairs.  In such a case, it was the duty of the petitioner to replace the car, as they were not in a position to rectify the defect.  Hence, there is no question of deducting any amount in the present case.”

Thus, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Hon’ble National Commission, we find that the complainant was entitled to the refund of the full price of the car, in question, without any deduction, whatsoever. 

11.             The other submission of the Counsel for the appellant, is that the amount of compensation, to the tune Rs.20,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, is very meagre,  for the harassment and mental agony undergone by the complainant. He further submitted that the District Forum ignored the fact that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.22,060/- towards the expert report, and, thus, the complainant is entitled to be adequately compensated. We find force, in this submission of the Counsel for the appellant, because as per Annexure C-28 i.e. the Fee receipt issued by the Punjab Engineering College, and University of Technology, Chandigarh, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.22,060/- on 19.8.2010.  Hence, we are of the opinion, that the compensation of Rs.20,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, is certainly, on the lower side, and needs to be enhanced.  Accordingly, the order passed by the District Forum, in this regard, is liable to be modified.

12.             In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, and the order passed by the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:-

i)       The respondents/Opposite Parties are directed to rectify the defects, in the car/replace the defective parts thereof,  as ordered by the District Forum and the complainant shall take the car to the service centre of the respondents/Opposite Parties, within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order for doing the needful.

ii)      Failure, on the part of the Opposite Parties/respondents to rectify the defects, to the satisfaction of the complainant, shall make them liable to refund the price of the vehicle.

iii)          The respondents/Opposite Parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.

iv)     The respondents/Opposite Parties shall also pay to the appellant/complainant a sum Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation instead of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the District Forum.

v)      The direction given by the District Forum for deduction of depreciation value @ 10% p.a. from the date of purchase of the car  till the impugned order passed by it, being illegal, is set aside.

13.             The aforesaid order be complied with by the respondents/opposite parties, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the respondents/Opposite Parties, shall also be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the aforesaid payable amounts,  from the date of order of the District Forum i.e. 17.01.2011  till realization, besides litigation costs.

14.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

30.04.2012                                                                                sd/-

    [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                            Sd/-                                  [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg