DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.375 of 2015
Date of institution: 28.07.2015 Date of decision : 20.09.2016
Parminder Singh son of Iqbal Singh resident of House No.335, Phase 3B-1, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. TATA Motors, SCO 170-171-172, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh 160017 through its Regional Manager.
2. TATA Motors, Marketing and Customer Support Passenger Car Business Unit, One Forbes, 5th Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400023 through its Manager.
3. Macro Ventures Pvt. Ltd. authorised dealer of TATA Passenger Cars, B-56, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali through its Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 to 14
of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri S.S. Lakha, counsel for the complainant.
None for OP Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Vikrant Guleria, counsel for OP No.3.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant, Parminder Singh son of Iqbal Singh resident of House No.335, Phase 3B-1, SAS Nagar (Mohali), has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant purchased TATA Manza vehicle on 29.07.2011 from Hind Motors, Mohali for Rs.6,05,894/-. The first free service was got done from Hind Motors Mohali from where the car was purchased. The second free service was got done on 15.03.2012 from Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh at a mileage of 9948 KMs. Parts mentioned at Sr.No.1,2, 11 and 17 on tax job card dated 15.03.2012 were replaced free of cost as they were in warranty period. Third free was also got done by the complainant at a mileage of 20,403 KMs from Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh on 11.10.2012 and payment of Rs.7,140/- was paid by the complainant. Thereafter, fourth free service was done at a mileage of 30,577 KM. on 22.05.2013 from Joshi Auto Zone by paying Rs.8,237/-. The complainant purchased extended warranty from the OPs through Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh on 27.08.2012 which was for another 24 months warranty in addition to manufacturer warranty period. Thus, the total warranty period was for 48 months or 1,50,000 KMs from the date of purchase, whichever is earlier. At the time of purchasing extended warranty, the car had covered distance of 17600 KMs. The car of the complainant started giving trouble shortly after its purchase. The pick up of the car became slow and it started giving black smoke from exhaust pipe. These defects were rectified by Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh by replacing Valve EGHR, Heat Exchanger free of costs. The problem of slow pick up again surfaced at a mileage of 12943 KMs and Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh informed the complainant that the Turbo Compressor of the engine was not working properly which was replaced free of costs the car being under warranty. Again the engine of the car started giving trouble and Injector in the engine were replaced free of cost. In the month of July, 2013 there was no cooling by the AC and Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh changed the Thermostat free of cost but after few days the AC started giving less cooling. The complainant was informed that there was minor fault and the AC will work properly after 30-40 KMs. However, the problem of AC still persists in the vehicle. On 13.08.2013 during extended warranty the driver information system, Assy. Expansion valve, dash board Assy were replaced vide bill dated 13.08.2013. The Glow Plugs were changed on 18.12.2013. The complainant got done the 5th service done at 40,893 KMs on 18.12.2013, 6th service on 51092 on 09.09.2014 and 7th service from Berkeley TATA Motors. The car of the complainant was giving trouble on way or the other and he never enjoyed hassle free ride of his car. In June, 2015 the complainant took his car to Berkeley TATA Motors for repairs but the concerned supervisor told the complainant that there is a process for changing the defective part as they have to put a request to TATA Motors and get the sanction if the said part is covered under extended warranty or not. After some time the supervisor informed the complainant that the request for changing the defective part has been declined by the system online and the reason for rejection was that previous claim had already been rejected as the service was not carried out as per manufacture norms, so new claim cannot be acceptable. On previous occasion at OP No.3 similar rejection was given to the complainant. The complainant informed the complainant that the car is under extended warranty as on 18.12.2013 two items were replaced by Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh free of costs being the car under extended warranty but the supervisor of Berkeley Motors denied to change the defective part. The car of the complainant was never 100% in its efficiency due to manufacturing defects and it is still giving trouble even after getting it repaired from the authorised dealer/service centre. On 25.07.2015 the complainant took his car to OP No.3 with various problems but OP No.3 rejected the repairs of the parts citing the reason that the complainant had not carried the service of the car as per norms of the manufacturer. Non replacement of parts within extended warranty period is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the car with new one of the same brand or refund Rs.6,05,894/- the price of the car as it has manufacturing defects; to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- for mental pain/harassment etc. and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses with interest @ 12% per annum.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs. OP No.1 and 2 in their reply had raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the cars mentioned by them pass through stringent quality checks. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As per Clause No.1 of terms and conditions the warranty was for 24 months from the date of sale or 75000 KMs whichever occurs earlier. In the present case the warranty of the vehicle had already expired and the complainant is not entitled for warranty benefits. The complaint is time barred as he had taken the delivery of the vehicle on 29.07.2011 and has instituted the present complaint in July, 2015 i.e. after four years after expiry of warranty and extended warranty period. The warranty of the vehicle expired on 28.07.2013. The extended warranty is the product of United India Insurance Company and the answering OPs have been unnecessarily dragged into the present controversy. As on 20.08.2015 the vehicle had covered distance of 60266 KMs which proves that the vehicle is roadworthy and does not suffer from any defect much less manufacturing defect. The complainant has leveled bald allegations in the complaint. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purposes for Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. No expert opinion has been filed by the complainant to prove that the vehicle suffers from any manufacturing defect. On merits also, these OPs have denied the averments of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. OP No.3 in the preliminary objections of its reply has pleaded that the complainant had not operated the vehicle in accordance with operating instructions and had not come for regular services at correct times. The extended warranty was not issued by OP No.3. As per condition No. (h) of the extended warranty the vehicle must be operated in accordance with operating instructions in the owner’s manual and must be regularly serviced at the correct time. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant for the first time visited OP No.3 on 09.09.2014. If the car of the complainant gave any trouble it was due to default of the complainant by not getting its service done as per recommended schedule. When the complainant came to OP No.3 during extended warranty, it sent a request to Global Administration Services for approval and after checking service record of the vehicle, Global Administration Services rejected the claim. The complainant had enjoyed hassle free ride from the last 4 years and in these years the complainant had driven his vehicle for 65203 KMs and on 25.07.2015 estimate for only wear and tear complaints was given to the complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.3 too has sought dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of invoice dated 31.07.2011 Ex.C-1; tax invoices Ex.C-2 to C-4; extended warranty Ex.C-5; tax invoices Ex.C-6 to C-12; job card Ex.C-13; rejection papers Ex.C-14 and C-15. In rebuttal OP No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of M.K. Bipin Dass, their Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP-1. OP No.3 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Balvinder Kumar Ex.OP-3/A; copies of authorization letter Ex.OP-3/1, instructions Ex.OP-3/2; conditions of extended warranty Ex.OP-3/3; service history Ex.OP-3/4; manual book Ex.OP-3/5; request for extended warranty and remarks Ex.OP-3/6.
6. The learnd Counsel for the complainant has stated that the main dispute involved in the present case is that, OP No.1 and 2 after issuing the extended warranty (Ex-C-5) rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had not got his car serviced at the correct time and kilometer as recommended by the manufacture. The learned Counsel submitted that it is evident from the job cards (Ex-C-6 to Ex-C13) that the complainant had been timely taking his vehicle for service alongwith repair work and the OP No.1 and 2 had never raised the objection with regard to not getting the vehicle serviced on correct time and kilometer. The learned Counsel pleaded that in case, complainant had violated manufactures’ recommendations, then the OP No.1 and 2 should not have issued extended warranty, thus the act and conduct of the OP No.1 and 2 proves that they have indulged in unfair trade practice by rejecting the bonafide request of the complainant .
7. It has been pleaded by OP No.1 and 2 that as per Clause No.1 of terms and conditions the warranty was for 24 months from the date of sale or 75000 KMs whichever occurs earlier. In the present case the warranty of the vehicle had already expired and the complainant is not entitled for warranty benefits. Learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the vehicle was not sold by OP No.3 nor the extended warranty was issued by OP No.3. Thus, the OP No.3 has no concern with the grievance of the complainant.
8. We have gone through pleadings, evidence and oral as well as written submissions. Inspite of issuance of extended warranty, OP No.1 and 2 did not repair the vehicle of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had not got his car serviced at the correct time and kilometer as recommended by the manufacture. In our opinion, the OP No.1 and 2 should not have issued the extended warranty when it was within their knowledge that the complainant had already violated the terms and condition of the original warranty which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 and 2. It is well established from the record produced by the complainant that OP No.1 and 2 have arbitrarily not honoured the terms of extended warranty. We further find that OP No.3 is not in any way involved in not honouring the request of the complaint by OP No.1 and 2.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find force in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. Hence, we direct OP No.1 and 2 to refund the amount charged for issuing the extended warranty to the complainant. We also find that complainant is entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony caused alongwith litigation cost The present complaint stands partly allowed.
The OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise they shall be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 20.09.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
