Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 630.
Instituted on : 21.11.2016.
Decided on : 08.11.2019.
Digvijay Jakhar, age 36 years, son of Sh. Khushi Ram Jakhar, Resident of H.No. A92, Preet Vihar, Kanheli Road, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Raj Motors, TATA Authorised Showroom, Near Bajrang Bhawan Phatak, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
2. Manager, Registered Office, TATA Motors, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai-400001. Ph.No.+91-22-66658282.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Bharat Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Jimmi Rathee, Advocate for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. R.N. Saini, Advocate for opposite party No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one TATA ZEST, XMS Car from his friend bearing registration No. HR-51BC-7536 vide Bill/Invoice Rs.6,45,710/- dated 12.05.2014 and now transferred in his name. That the said car has got many issues/problems in its first year of purchase like failure of AC, mileage issue, breaking issue ABS, oil leakage, poor pickup with smoke-, clutch issue, engine noise issue, gear issue, infotainment system issue etc. That the complainant also purchased an extended warranty Sr. No. 790130167 on 12.04.2016 (+2 years or 1,50,000 Km, whichever is earlier) for Rs.9,500/-, but OP No. 1 issued the said extended warranty policy till 04.12.2018 instead of 04.12.2019. Beside the alleged issues some new faults like AC, mileage, breaking issue, oil, poor pick up, smoke in excess, gear issue, infotainment system issue, suspension issue etc. appeared in the vehicle. These defects have not been rectified by the OP properly. That the complainant took his vehicle for above said problems to many other authorized service centers of TATA motors like Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad, Mahadev Motors, Bhiwani and now finally to Raj Motors, Rohtak i.e. OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 on many occasions never provided any job sheet and if provided any, then he did not enter the same in service history record of the vehicle and sometimes issued it with some others name like Mr. Subhash Sharma, but the car was not repaired despite his repeated requests and e-mails and visits to the authorized showroom. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to replace the defective vehicle against new one or to refund Rs.6,45,710/- alongwith registration charges and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase till refund, to refund the extended warranty amount with interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that there is no malfunctioning in the above said vehicle. That when ever the complainant approached to the office of the OP No. 1, the OP No. 1 always repaired the alleged vehicle in time always. It is denied that the problems mentioned in the complaint has not been sorted out. In fact all the problems shown in the complaint are false and no such problem are in existence and prayed for dismissal for the complaint qua the OP No. 1.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply has submitted that as per records, maintained by the OP No. 2, the vehicle in question has been purchased by Ms. Sonia Bhatia from Tayal Motors, Faridabad and thereafter, sold the vehicle to the complainant. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs and the complainant, being subsequent purchaser/second owner does not enjoy the status of a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief against OP No. 2. It is also submitted that the complainant has not placed on record any document to substantiate regarding visit to the workshop as well as defects as pointed out in the complaint. It is submitted that as per records maintained by OP No. 2, the vehicle in question has brought at the workshop of Tayal Motors, Faridabad for 3 times in first year of its purchase. Out of 3 visits, the vehicle was brought 2 times for schedule service and one time for updation. The vehicle was never brought with any complaint in its first year of purchase and by that time, the vehicle had approximately covered 26000 kilometers. It is pertinent to mention here that the policy of the OP is whenever any customer alleges defects or complaint in the vehicle, the same is recorded in the job card and is thoroughly checked by competent engineers at service station. The mere allegation or complaint got recorded in the job card by a customer, by no means, is the confirmation that the vehicle has any such defect. As per records, maintained by the OP No. 2, no such repairs with regard to AC, milage issue, coolant leakage, poor pickup, engine noise, smoke in excess, gear issue, infotainment system issue, voice command issue and wheel wobbling were carried out. The vehicle in question was met with accidents twice in the month of April 2016 and December 2016 and brought for major accidental repairs in the month of April 2016, which clearly shows that the complainant was negligent and thus, after accidents the warranty cease to exist as per clause no.5 of terms and conditions of warranty, which are binding upon the parties. The complainant has reported the complaint of brake gabbling only on 14.02.2016, complaint of clutch hard only on 12.04.2016 at 30600 kilometers, complaint under carriage noise on 20.08.2016 and 22.12.2016 i.e. after filing of the present complaint. After necessary repairs, the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant. It is submitted that the vehicle has reported 4 times for Free Recommended Mandatory Services and Updation, 1 time for accidental repair and two times for running repairs i.e. clutch hard and under carriage noise. As per records maintained by OP No. 2, the vehicle was brought on 14.11.2016 with the complaint of horn not working and after replacement of steering wheel switch, the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant. It is further submitted that the consumables like oil, filter, air etc. and normal wear & tear are not covered under the warranty and are chargeable. The complainant is leveling false allegations of charging huge amount by the OPs. It is submitted that the vehicle in question has covered a distance of 43330 kilometers as on 22.12.2016, which clearly establishes the fact that vehicle in question is being used extensively and negligently by the complainant. It is also submitted that it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No. 2.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C35 and has closed his evidence on dated 09.08.2018. Ld. counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/B and documents Ex.RW1/1 & Ex.RW1/2 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.10.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his evidence on dated 05.10.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per para no.4 of the complaint, the complainant has given the detail of service history details to shows that the vehicle was repaired for faults in the authorized service centers time to time in very short intervals. Perusal of these details shows that the date of first six details are w.e.f. 29.01.2015 to 19.04.2016 whereas the R.C. was transferred in the name of complainant on 06.05.2016. The first owner of vehicle has not made any complaint regarding the defect in vehicle. Moreover, as per affidavit filed by OP No.2, the first four visits were for Free services and updation of vehicle, on 12.04.2016 for clutch hard, on 19.04.2016 the same was repaired for accidental repair and thereafter for running repairs i.e. clutch hard and under carriage noise. Opposite party No.2 has also placed on record satisfaction note dated 07.07.2016 and 20.08.2016, which shows that the complainant had taken the vehicle after repairs to his entire satisfaction and he had taken the test drive of the vehicle. As per the copy of video recording clip placed on record Ex.C28, the Manager of opposite party no.2 has stated that they are unable to repair the vehicle again and the complainant can repair the same from outside. Opposite party No.2 as per affidavit Ex.RW1/A has submitted that the vehicle in question has covered 43330 kms. as on 22.12.2016 which proves that the vehicle is roadworthy and is not suffering from manufacturing defect.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
……………………………….
Tripti Pannu, Member.
