Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 124.
Instituted on : 01.03.2017.
Decided on : 01.02.2019.
Naresh Gupta, age 50 years, son of Sh. Manohar Lal Gupta, Resident of C/o Vivek Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass. 835/10, Rup Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1 TATA Motors Head Office, One Forbes, 5th Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Kala Ghoda Fort, Mumbai (Maharastra) Through its MD/Authorized Person.
2 Raj Motors, Raj Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak (Haryana) through its Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Person.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Birbal Sohal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. R.N. Saini, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh. Jimmi Rathee, Advocate for OP No. 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:1. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle i.e. TATA INDIGO ECS LX from OP No. 2 having registration No. HR-12T-8282 and paid an amount of Rs.5,80,000/-. That warranty of the said vehicle has been extended by OP from 23.01.2017 to 22.01.2019. It is alleged that after purchasing of said vehicle, the vehicle became defective under warranty period and complainant made a complaint to OP No. 2, but the official of OP No. 2 always removed only minor defects of the vehicle. But the injector problem of the vehicle has not been rectified by the OPs official. Complainant made so many complaints in this regard on dated 27.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 15.12.2015 and 28.01.2017, but the problem has not been rectified and the official of the OPs inspite of rectifying the defects of the vehicle are demanding Rs.30,000/- for removing the defects of said vehicle whereas the vehicle is under warranty period. Complainant send a legal notice dated 07.02.2017 to the OPs, but in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to replace the said vehicle with new one or to return the amount of Rs.580000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2 After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the warranty was for 2 years from the date of sale of the car and the original manufacturer’s warranty in respect of the vehicle in question had already been expired. The vehicle in question has covered 86755 kilometers as on 30.01.2017 which would amply prove that the vehicle is roadworthy and does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. That complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question suffers from any defect. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not bothered to disclose the date when he brought the vehicle in question at any of the authorized workshop of the answering OP for repairs. That on 06.07.2012, 08.08.2012 and 15.10.2012 the vehicle came for mandatory services and no complaint was reported by the complainant. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question has been serviced and repaired all the time with the diligence. No complaint was to even record by the OP no.2 from the complainant. It is denied that the vehicle is still facing injector problem. That there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and opposite parties are not liable to replace the defects of the said vehicle free of cost. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and has closed his evidence on dated 07.05.2018. Ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 27.09.2018. Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence on dated 27.09.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. As per the complainant he extended his warranty of the vehicle time to time and extended the same also on 23.01.2017 to 22.01.2019. He complained regarding the defect in the vehicle through emails dated 27.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 15.12.2015 and 28.01.2017 and also complaint at the customer care toll free number. He has submitted that he suffered problem in the injector of his vehicle but the same was not rectified by the respondents’ officials and respondents are demanding an amount of Rs.30000/- for removing the defect from the vehicle of the complainant. He also claimed that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for replacement of the defective vehicle free of cost with new one or to return the price of the vehicle. He further submitted in para no.4 of the complaint that the said vehicle is standing in the showroom of respondent no.2 for the last 3 times but officials of the respondent no.2 is not issuing receipt of the same to the complainant and are demanding an amount of Rs.30000/- for rectifying the defect.
7. On the other hand, beside the documents placed on record, respondent no.1 made a statement on dated 03.01.2019 which is annexed with the mail Annexure-A. As per the respondent no.1, vehicle was purchased in the year 20.06.2012 and the present complaint was made before the Forum on dated 01.03.2017 and the same was highly time barred. In fact the complainant would approach within two years of the sale of vehicle if he has any grievance regarding the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. He also submitted that as per clause no.1 of terms and conditions of the warranty, “This warranty shall be for two years from the date of sale of the car”. He further submitted that vehicle has covered 86755 kms. as on 30.01.2017. The warranty was upto 19.06.2014 hence there is no cause of action arisen against the respondent bo.1. Moreover he also submitted that as per the complaint itself he informed to the respondent no.1 though email on dated 27.11.2015 whereas the warranty of the vehicle had already been lapsed on dated 19.06.2014. Hence there is no cause of action against respondent No.1. Moreover counsel for respondent No.1 made a statement that as per the complaint itself he informed to respondent No.1 & 2 through email firstly on 27.11.2015 whereas the warranty of the vehicle had already been lapsed on dated 19.06.2014. Hence there is no cause of action against respondent No.2. Moreover counsel for the respondent No.1 made a statement on dated 03.01.2019 that the complainant has purchased AMC Silver-Indigo on dated 23.01.2017 and same was upto 22.01.2019. As per the respondent No.1 there is a difference between AMC(Annual Maintenance Charges) and extended warranty. As per respondent no.1 the extended warranty was not bought by the customer/consumer whereas he is thinking that silver AMC is an extended warranty but there is a lot of difference between extended warranty and AMC Silver which was bought by the complainant. Under the silver AMC the company only covers schedule services(wear & tear and any other repair is not covered under the silver AMC). So the bare perusal of the email and other documents placed on record by the respondents, it is well proved that the complainant had only purchased silver AMC instead of extended warranty. As per the Ex.C10 itself, this fact has been mentioned that “Tata Motors undertakes to provide maintenance and repair services to the above mentioned vehicle purchased by the Buyer, (Hereinafter referred as the “Customer”) as per the Schedule of services for a period of 2 years or 20000 kms., whichever is earlier from the date hereof on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract which Tata Motors Limited will offer to the customer separately. Against this AMC the respondent No.1 charged an amount of Rs.15173/-. As per the respondent No.2 warranty has been finished and he has not received any single penny. In fact there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and there is no extended warranty. After perusal of the documents we came to the conclusion that under the silver AMC complainant is only entitled for the scheduled services(wear and tear) and any other repairs are not covered under the Silver AMC meaning thereby repair/replacement of the parts are not covered. In the present case complainant himself had approached to the respondents regarding the defect on dated 27.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 15.12.2015 and lastly on 28.01.2017. Regarding this fact he has not placed on record any mail of these dates. Moreover as per the complainant himself he purchased the Silver AMC on dated 27.01.2017 so defect occurred in the period of 27.11.15, 03.12.2015, 15.12.2015 and the defect of injector occurred on 28.01.2017 does not cover under the warranty or under the AMC Silver.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. 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:
01.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
