Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/995/2019

Navneet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal, Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/995/2019
Date of Institution	:	9.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	27.03.2023

 

1. Navneet Singh S/o Sh. Narinder Singh r/o House No. 516 Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

2. Tata Motors, Bombay House 24, HomiModi Street, Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Mumbai-400001, Maharashtra, through its Managing Director/Directors/ authorized persons/authorized signatories.
3.  Berkely Tata Motors Showroom plot No.5, Industrial Area Phase-1, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Directors/ authorized persons/authorized signatories.

 .  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Ms. Keerti Sandhu vice counsel for Sh. Amarbir Dhaliwal, counsel for complainant. Ms. Shairon Tyagi, vice counsel for Sh. Shivam Grover, Counsel for OP No.1 Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, counsel for OP No.2.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant allured with the advertisement of the  Opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred to as OPs) purchased Tata Harrier, XZ 2.0 L Kryotec Diesel BSIV  Thermisto gold, 5 seater for a sale consideration of Rs.16,70,000/-.  It is alleged that on 8.9.2019 at about 1 pm in the afternoon when the complainant was driving the vehicle in question near tribune chowk he noticed that the steering wheel of the said vehicle became very hard and it also suddenly became very difficult  to control the said vehicle and suddenly the warning signal i.e. electronic stability program (ESP) displayed on the information system of the dashboard of the vehicle and the message also displayed “contact vehicle service provider”.  The complainant immediately took the vehicle to the agency of OP No.2.  The OP No.2 after inspecting the vehicle told the complainant that the right hand side arm of the vehicle has bent and the same has occurred as the said vehicle had been driven through the massive pothole. It is stated that the complainant driven the car on in the city of Chandigarh and never been subject to any carelessness or negligence.  In fact the bent in the right arm bend occurred due to manufacturing defect and not due to any fault or wrongdoing of the complainant. It is alleged that the OP No.2 has raised a repair estimate of Rs.9,975/-  and asked the complainant to claim the amount from the insurance company. The complainant left with no option got the defective right arm bent repaired on 13.9.2019 and paid an amount of Rs.9,975/- under protest. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that the vehicle was reported to the workshop of OP No2 and after inspection it was found that the RHS suspension arm got bent due to the external impact meaning thereby that the complainant was negligent in driving the vehicle and the bent has arisen due to the impact of some accident. The engineers suggested the complainant that sine RHS suspension arm got damaged due to external impact he could lodge claim with insurance company. However, the complainant in order to avail No claim Bonus, decided to have the repairs caried out on paid basis. The complainant was informed that since the part was detected due to external impact it could not be covered under terms and conditions of warranty. It is  denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is alleged that the complainant has concealed that fact that damage had caused due to the accident. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Opposite Part No. 2 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the vehicle in question was brought to the workshop on 8.9.2019 and it was found that the righthand side arm was found bent which was the result of wheel hitting with some strong object or the vehicle hitting from underneath.  Since the damage was due to the result of accident/external damage therefore, the repair was not covered under warranty and the same was payable by the complainant or the complainant had choice to take claim of accidental insurance. On receiving consent to repair the vehicle in question was replaced and the complainant took the delivery of vehicle on 13.9.2019 after paying Rs.9975/- Denying all other allegations made in the complaint it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that on receipt of some display message on the screen of his car he approached the workshop of the OPs wherein after inspection they found that the right handside chimta was found bent  due to plying of vehicle through a pothole and after necessary repairs he was made to pay Rs.9975/- though the vehicle was still under warranty period.
8. The stand of the  OPs is that  signs of strong impact were found on tyre & alloy wheel  and warranty does not cover any accidental repairs.
9. We have perused the  Annexure B of the OP  reply, which are the detailed terms and conditions of the warranty of vehicle. Para 10 of the same are reproduced as under:-

“10. This warranty shall be null and void if the car is subjected to abnormal use such as rallying, racing or participation in any other competitive sport. This warranty shall not apply to any repair or replacements as a result of accident or collision.”

 

10. It is very clear from the aforesaid conditions  that the warranty shall  not apply to any repair or replacements as a result of accident or collision. The complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence that the bend of right hand-side chimta was due to manufacturing defect. Thus, no case is made out against the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member