DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt. Vidya.A., Memeber

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member            Date of filing: 27/08/2022   

CC/159/2022

    Muhammed Shaheed.T

    S/o Saidalavi,

    Thottathodi House,

    Chunangad (P.O)

    Ottapalam Taluk

Palakkad – 679 511.                                              -               Complainant

(By Adv. R.Rajendran)

                                                           V/s

1. Tata Motors

    Floor 3 & 4, Plot 18

    Nanavathi Mahalaya,

    Mudhana Shetty Marg,

BSE, Fort,

    Mumbai – 400 001.

   (By Adv.V.Krishna Menor, B.Sulfikar Ali, Prinsun Philip)

2. Hyson Motors

    Puzhakkalpadam, Guruvayoor Road

    Poonkunnam PO,

    Thrissur Dist.

    Pin – 680 002

    (By Adv. Joy Kanhirathinchalil)

3. Evolt Pathiripala,

    Evolt Mobility Tata Motors,

    Tata authorized Service Centre,

    Mankara,

    Pathiripala,

Kerala – 678 613                                                 -            Opposite parties

(by Adv. K.Dhananjayan)

O R D E R

Prepared by Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

     Complainant purchased a car of model Tata Nexon XZ + 1.5 RTQ BS4 manufactured by the 1^st opposite party on 19/12/2019. From the beginning itself there were some problems in the engine. After running about 7000 km, there was an increase in the engine sound. On enquiry, the 2^nd OP informed that the sound will be reduced after 10000 kms; but it did not come down.

      The exhaust pipe broke around 12536 km and because of that he met with an accident. He took the vehicle to the Hyson Motors (2^nd OP) where they changed the pipe and said that all the vehicles of the same batch have this problem.

          The exhaust pipe broke again at 29861 km and the 2^nd OP changed it on 5/8/2020 and assured that this problem would not happen again.

          The stabilizer link assembly was not working and it was repaired by OP3 on 11/10/2021. The exhaust pipe again broken when it completed 49622 km and the 2^nd OP changed the pipe fully from the engine on 11/11/2021.

          After this repair, vehicle mileage was reduced to 18 km per litre. After 51,000/- kms, the vehicle’s water pump stopped working and it was replaced by a new one by the 2^nd opposite party.

          The increase in the sound from the front side of the vehicle was not rectified and the technicians of OP3 told that this could be due to defective shock absorber and they changed it. But still the sound remained the same.

          While he was travelling in Wayanad, the engine started to give more sound and later it stopped working. The technicians of the nearby workshop told that the engine nut was loose; so all the engine oil was drained out. It could not be repaired by the technicians and the vehicle was towed to Evolt, Pathirapala(OP3) for repair on 13/6/2022. They informed that all this problems were due to non-inspection of the vehicle by OP2 at the time of delivery. On of their technicians told that sound from the front side of the vehicle was due to default of link bush and they changed it and the complainant paid Rs.1224/- for this. But the sound remained the same. They also found complaint in the steering box and were ready to change it, and requested for warranty approval. But Tata Motors rejected the request. Finally they agreed and replaced the steering box on 11/08/22; but still the sound remained the same.  The vehicle gear was not working properly after the engine problem. The complainant states that all these problems are due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He suffered huge financial loss and mental agony due to this.

          So he approached this Commission for directing Tata Motors (1^st OP) to pay Rs.14,80,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs for the mental agony suffered due to these vehicle problems.

2.  After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. All opposite parties filed versions. Version of OP1 & 2 are rejected as it is filed beyond statutory period. Version of OP3 was taken on file.

3.  The main contentions raised by OP3 in their version is as follows:-

          The 1^st OP is a reputed company manufacturing vehicles in India. The 3^rd OP being authorised service centre has provided all necessary support to protect the interest of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and there is no cause of action against them and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.

4.  From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is any statutory bar in filing this complaint ?
2. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving the allegation of manufacturing defect in the vehicle ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
5. Reliefs as cost and compensation

5.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1– A11 marked from his side. Complainant filed an application IA 193/23 seeking an order directing the 3^rd OP to carry out the repair of complainant’s car and it was allowed. As per the order, OP3 was directed to carry out the repair of the complainant’s vehicle as and when the complainant approaches and also directed to maintain proper paper works regarding the works carried out. But afterwards, both sides did not submit anything regarding this. OP3 was continuously absent for the proceedings and they were set ex-parte. Later they filed IA 416/23 to set aside that order and that was dismissed.

6.  Point No.1

The complainant purchased a ‘Tata Nexon Car’ manufactured by the                1^st OP from the 2nd OP on 19/12/2019. The vehicle started giving problems from the very beginning and the complainant alleges manufacturing defect in the vehicle. According to the complainant, the problems in the vehicle persists even at the time of filing of this complaint. So there is continuous cause of action exists against the opposite parties and there is no statutory bar in filing this complaint.

Points 2 to 4

7.  The complainant’s grievance is regarding the problems in his vehicle one by one from the very beginning of is purchase. According to him, after running about 7000 km, the engine started giving abnormal sound and the complainant informed the 2^nd OP about this. They informed that the sound will get reduced after running 10000 kms., but it did not happen.

The exhaust pipe of the car broke at 12536 kms. causing accident to him. The 2^nd OP changed the pipe; but it again broke when the car had completed 29861 km and it was again changed by them. The sound again started from the front side of the car. Thereafter on completing 46469 kms, the stabilizer link assembly stopped functioning and it was repaired by 3^rd OP. The exhaust pipe again broke and they again changed it on 11/11/21. On completion of 51000 kms, the car’s water pump stopped working and it was replaced by a new one. As per 3^rd opposite party’s assessment, the sound from the engine is due to shock absorber and they changed it. Even after that, the sound continued and remained the same.

During his trip to Wayand, the engine stopped and technicians, after inspecting, informed that the engine nut is loose due to which the entire engine is drained out and it could not be repaired. The car was towed to 3^rd OP’s service centre. After repair, they informed that the engine problem is resolved and the sound is due to the defect in the link bush and changed it. Even after repeated repairs and services, the problems in the vehicle persisted.

8.  Complainant’s grievance is that the problems in the vehicle started from the very beginning and it is still persisting. He alleges manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Inorder to prove this, he did not move any application for the appointment of expert commissioner. In the absence of expert report, complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

9.  Further the complainant did not have a case that the opposite parties 2 & 3 failed to provide service to the vehicle. His contention is that even after service, the problems in the vehicle persisted and it is due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

10. In the absence of sufficient evidence, the complainant failed to prove any  deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

     Pronounced in open court on this the 24^th  day of August, 2023.

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                       Vinay Menon V

                                                                                  President  

Sd/-

                                                                                            Vidya.A

                                                                                            Member                                           

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Preliminary information sheet and Performa invoice of Hyson 

             Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Ext. A2: Tax invoice of Hyson Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

Ext. A3: Road Tax Receipt of Motor Vehicles Department Kerala, Ottapalam 

             SRTO.

Ext. A4: Receipt of Hyson Motors Pvt.Ltd., for credit card payment dated 

              20.12.2019.

Ext. A5: Insurance certificate of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Ext. A6: Service charge bills 14 nos of Tata Motors.,

Ext. A7: Extended Warranty Bill of Tata Motors Ltd.,

Ext. A8: Insurance certificate 3 nos.

Ext. A9: Copy of vehicle Registration Certificate

Ext.A10: Bill of BTS constructions & Earth Movers towheads towing charges

Ext.A11: Bank Statement of Axis Bank.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost : Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which