STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 156 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 07.05.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 21.08.2012 |
Sh. Jagir Singh s/o Charan Singh r/o Guru Teg Bahadur Colony, Ajnala Road, Fatehgarh Churian, District Gurdaspur. ……Appellant/Complainant. Versus 1. Tata Motors C/o Marketing and Customer Support Passenger Car Business Unit, One Forbes 5th Floor, Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumai-400023 through its Managing Director. 2. The Regional Manager, Tata Motors, SCO No.70-72 FF, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. 3. The Distributor Hind Motor (India Ltd), Registered Office: 15, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh. 4. The Distributor Hind Motor (India Ltd) B-16, IND Area, Phase-II, Mohali. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sh. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. PER MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.04.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed complaint case No.454 of 2011. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo CSLX Car from Opposite Party No.3 on 9.2.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,81,789.02Ps vide Annexure C-1. It was stated that on 10.2.2011, when the complainant was on his way to Fatehgarh Churian, the steering of the car got automatically locked, as a result whereof, a major accident took place, wherein the car was badly damaged. It was further stated that after the accident, the complainant immediately contacted Opposite Parties No.1 & 3. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant to bring the car at Mohali Office of Opposite Party No.4 and assured about the replacement of the same. It was further stated that the vehicle was entrusted to the Manager of Opposite Party No.4 on 10.2.2011, which is still lying there. It was further stated that the complainant made several visits to Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, seeking replacement of the car, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.2.2011(Annexures C-4 & C-5) to Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 4, but to no effect. It was stated that the act of non replacement of car by the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, on their part . 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. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, stated that as per the service schedule of the vehicle, in question (Annexure R-2/1), the complainant was supposed to bring the vehicle to their service centre, at the recommended intervals, as mentioned in the Operator’s Service Book, for carrying out the mandatory free service, but he failed to do so. It was further stated that the complainant had also failed to produce, on record, any document to show that he had regularly got serviced the vehicle, as per the recommended service schedule, as per Clauses 5 and 7 of the terms and conditions of warranty (Annexure R-2/2). It was further stated that the vehicle purchased by the complainant, was of the highest quality and he had taken delivery of the same, after being satisfied with its condition and performance. It was further stated that the vehicle was delivered after carrying out Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) by the dealer. It was also stated that all vehicles manufactured, in the plant, were put through stringent control system, quality checks, and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department, before being cleared for dispatch to the market. It was further stated that the complainant had failed to produce, on record, any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that in the absence of any such expert opinion, the allegations of the complainant, did not stand established. It was further stated that the relationship between the Opposite Parties was on principal to principal basis and they could not be held liable for any independent act or omission, committed by other Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. It was further stated that the vehicle had no mechanical fault and that the steering of the vehicle could not get locked automatically. It was further stated that the complainant had taken the vehicle to Opposite Party No.4, for carrying out accidental repairs, and also intimated the Insurance Company about the accident, vide intimation letter dated 7.3.2011, showing the amount of estimated repairs of Rs.2,76,040/- (Annexures R-2/3 & R-2/4). It was further stated that the complainant had abandoned the vehicle with Opposite Party No.4, under the garb of carrying out repairs, so the answering Opposite Parties were not responsible for it. It was further stated that the accident, as alleged, was not covered under the limited warranty terms, extended by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, so there was no question of replacement of the vehicle. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied. 4. Opposite Parties No.3 and 4, in their written version, stated that in the job card dated 11.2.2011, it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle was left by the complainant for accidental repairs, as the front portion of the same was damaged and no other mechanical fault etc. was alleged by him. It was further stated that the answering Opposite parties had been requesting the complainant to complete the insurance formalities and give approval for repairs, but till date, the complainant had not given any instructions except a copy of the letter (Annexure R-1), written to the Insurance Company for treating the damage under accidental claim. It was further stated that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant, in a perfect condition. It was also stated that the vehicle met with an accident at Fatehgarh Sahib, but the complainant failed to place on record copy of the DDR or F.I.R., about the alleged accident. It was further stated that due to conflicting statements of the complainant; non completion of formalities and approval from his side, the vehicle was lying in the workshop. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint, were denied. 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, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. Along with the appeal, an application for additional evidence was filed by the appellant for producing the expert evidence to prove that the steering of vehicle got automatically locked, due to major mechanical fault in the car, which amounted to inherent manufacturing defect. 10. It is evident from Para No.13 of the complaint that earlier with regard to the same subject matter, complaint bearing Number CC/149/2011 was filed by the complainant, which was dismissed, as withdrawn vide order dated 07.04.2011 with permission to file a fresh one. Again the complainant filed another complaint relating to the same subject matter, which was again dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh one. Again, the third complaint, out of the decision whereof, the instant appeal has arisen, was filed by the complainant on 09.08.2011. The complainant had ample opportunity to led expert evidence, during the pendency of complaint, when the same was fixed for producing his evidence. He failed to produce the expert evidence, to prove that the car suffered from some inherent manufacturing defect. On the other hand, he misused and abused the process of law, by filing complaints one after the other, relating to the same subject matter. The appellant cannot be given the liberty to fill in the lacuna, left in his case. If the application is allowed, at this stage, it would tantamount to reopening the whole case, leading to further delay, in the disposal of the dispute. The application, thus, being devoid of merit is dismissed. 11. Admittedly, the appellant/complainant purchased Tata Indigo CSLX Car from Opposite Party No.3 on 9.2.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,81,789.02Ps vide Annexure C-1, and on the next day, when he was on his way to Fatehgarh Churian, due to sudden locking of the steering, the car met with an accident and was badly damaged regarding which, F.I.R was also lodged. As per the appellant/complainant, this accident occurred due to some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In support of his contention, he placed on record the report (Annexure C-6) dated 26.12.2011 of Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, Surveyor and Investigation report dated 03.08.2011 of Royal Associates (as part of Annexure C-7 at running Page No.53 of the complaint file). 12. In rebuttal, the Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties submitted that the report furnished by Er. Rajesh Wadhawan, could not be considered, as evidence, because it was not supported by an affidavit of the said surveyor, and, moreover, this report had been prepared after ten months of the accident and, as such, it lost its evidentiary value. He further submitted that in the Investigation report furnished by Royal Associates, there was no mention, as to whether, the steering of the car, got locked, due to some manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, and as such, the complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence regarding the alleged manufacturing defect. 13. From the report of the surveyor dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure C-6), it is evident that the same was tendered by him, without filing his affidavit in support of its contents. Even otherwise, in the said report, under the columns “Cause of Accident” and “Comments”, the surveyor stated as under: - “Cause of Accident: As narrated by the insured and mentioned in the claim form that because of steering lock the vehicle went out of control and banged into a pole with great impact, causing damage to it. Comments: The accident as stated above is possible and damages occurred have complete similarity with the nature and cause of accident.” In his survey report (Annexure C-6), the surveyor namely Er. Rajesh Wadhawan did not mention that the steering of the vehicle, in question, got locked, due to some manufacturing defect. Even also, in the Investigation report dated 03.08.2011 of Royal Associates, nowhere it was mentioned, that the accident occurred due to some manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, purchased by the complainant. 14. The onus to prove that there was some manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, was on the appellant/complainant. To establish that the car suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, he neither produced report of some qualified expert in the field, nor during the pendency of the complaint, he made any prayer, before the District Forum, to send the vehicle, in question, to any Laboratory, to establish his claim of manufacturing defect. The District Forum was right in holding that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The District Forum was also right in holding that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Parties. 15. Therefore, in our considered view, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, on the basis of evidence and documents placed before it. The order of the District Forum is, thus, legal and valid. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed, being devoid of merit, with no orders as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. The appellant shall, however, be at liberty, to take back his car from the workshop of respondents No.3 and 4, where he had left the same of his volition. 17. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. 21st August, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.156 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sh. Ranjan Lohan, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Dated the 21st day of August, 2012. ORDER Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the application for adducing additional evidence filed by the appellant as well as the main appeal has been dismissed, with no orders as to costs, as per directions. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD)] PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
