BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Narinder Vaishnav s/o Sh. Hari Krishan r/o Shree Hari Prem Niwas, Near National Dental College, Village Gulabgarh, Dear Bassi, SAS Nagar.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.        Tata Motors, through its Manager, through Hind Motors (India) Ltd., Registered Office : 15, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

2.        Hind Motors (India) Ltd., Registered Office, 15, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Parveen Kumar Garg, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OP-1

Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Adv. for OP-2

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 21.1.2010 the complainant purchased a Tata Mint white-Indigo-CS LX TCIC BS III car from OP-2 against a total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,391.45. Soon after he found that there were some defects  in the car.  Accordingly he took the car to the service center of OP-1 at the premises of OP-2 where they opened the engine to repair the same but after 4-5 days the engine again started emanating sound.  It has been alleged that within a period of 4 months from the date of purchase he took his car to the service center about 8-10 times for the noise but the same could not be set right as there were major manufacturing defects in the vehicle.  The complainant has attached various bills and receipts of the work got carried out by him at the service center. Despite all the work being done, the car is not yet defect free.  The complainant has thus filed this complaint alleging that the car needs to be replaced.

2.               In their written reply OP-1 did not dispute that the vehicle in question was purchased from OP-2.  However, at the outset it has been stated that the complainant was using the vehicle for commercial purposes. It has been denied that there were any problems in the vehicle as were alleged in the complaint.  It has also been denied that he took the vehicle to the service station of the OP 8-10 times or that the engine of the car was opened even once.  It has been pleaded that the OP and their dealers attended to the vehicle of the complainant promptly and rendered satisfactory services whenever the vehicle was brought to them. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that neither the vehicle in question was suffering from any manufacturing defect nor has there been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, they have  prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.               OP-2 in their separate written reply took almost similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their written reply and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.               We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.               The complainant in his complaint has insisted that the car needs to be replaced because despite so many visits to the service centre, a strange loud sound continues to be emitted from the engine. However, the number of jobs cards that have been placed on record by the complainant do not point out any specific defect in the car.  The OPs in their reply have stated that whenever the complainant came to them for service of the car, they have sent him back fully satisfied, also a perusal of the job cards placed on record by them clearly shows that no specific defect has been brought out in the car which would show that the car has a manufacturing defect and needs to be replaced.  The defects in the car are basically with regard to the shocker, window and dickey not closing properly, locks not working properly etc. The OPs have also stated at the time of arguments that the noise referred to by the complainant apparently seems to be due to the fact that the car has a diesel engine.  It is common parlance that a diesel vehicle is more noisy than a petrol vehicle, and this is probably where the complainant continues to be dis-satisfied even though there is no real manufacturing defect in the car. 

7.               The complainant has also not attached any affidavit by way of evidence, or a report by any automobile engineer to prove his allegations that the car had manufacturing defect. In the absence of any expert evidence we are unable to deduce that the car which has a diesel engine is suffering from any manufacturing defect.  In support of his contentions the ld. counsel for the OPs has placed on record the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Chandeshwar Kumar Vs Tata Engineering Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Anr.-I (2007) CPJ 2 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission while dismissing the appeal in para 3 held as under :-

“…………No additional material or evidence has been brought before us to prove this allegation, of the vehicle having any manufacturing defect, in the absence of which, like State Commission, we are of the view that the appellant/complainant has failed to prove his case and the appeal as well as complaint has no legs to stand on its own.”

In the judgment in the case of Ajitha Chit Funds (P) Ltd. Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors.-I (2007) CPJ 204 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission in para 3 of their judgment held as under :-

                     “…. Indisputedly, the petitioner did not file affidavit by way of evidence or examine any automobile engineer to stage that the car was having any manufacturing defect.  In absence of evidence of expert to that effect and car having diesel engine, it cannot be concluded as rightly held by Fora below that car was having manufacturing defect.”

The next judgment relied upon by the ld. counsel for the OPs is Dagadu Bhairu Bhosale Vs. Scooter India Ltd. & Anr.-II (2006) CPJ 143 (NC) in which the Hon’ble National Commission in para 4 of their judgment held as under :-

                     “………….But as we see that there is no evidence brought on record, of any person qualified to state so, that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect.  After perusal of the receipts of repair, brought on record, we do not see that any of them could be said to be leading us to conclude that there was manufacturing defect.  Basically they were replacement of consumables and other repair charges and nowhere, at no stage, anyone has stated that chassis had a manufacturing defect, in the absence of which, we are in no position to take any different view than both the lower fora that there was a manufacturing defect.”

8.               Placing reliance on the judgments stated above and the documents placed on record as well as the arguments of the parties, we are also of the opinion that there does not seem to be any apparent manufacturing defect in the car. The job sheets placed on record do not point towards any manufacturing defects. They are all relating to minor faults and natural wear and tear and servicing which are the natural outcome of the usage of the vehicle.  The complainant has also not been able to prove his allegations by way of an expert evidence on record.  Hence the complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.