ORDER

26.06.2024

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

1. The complainant filed present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In brief the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  purchased a Tata Magic IRIS from OP1 & 2 on 09.03.2015. It is alleged by the complainant that earlier he purchased the same brand  from OP1 on 03.03.2015, however, the tyres of this vehicle got completely jammed and the vehicle is continuously emitting burning smell of wire as such OP2 replaced the said vehicle with new one on 09.03.2015.

2. It is alleged by the complainant that the another vehicle was delivered by OP2 on 09.03.2015 and within one week of the delivery the vehicle tents to drift in one direction and the tyres appeared to be excessively worn out and the vehicle was consuming lot of CNG and running only few kilometers rather than assured by OP2, as such complainant lodged the complaint with OP2, but all in vain.

3. On 16.03.2015, the complainant took the said vehicle to Mathura road workshop of OP2 and asked them to carry out the necessary repairing work and issue job card. The executive of OP2 although repaired the vehicle but did not issued the job card. It is alleged by the complainant that after few day of the repairing the complainant noticed dramatic sign of wear and tear and as such again visited the service centre of OP2 on Mathura Road but the service centre failed to carry out the repairing work and advised the complainant to visit Cargo Motor Workshop Budhpur of OP2. Having no other option, on 15.04.2016 the complainant visited Budhpur workshop of OP2 where the engineers of OP2  after inspecting the vehicle refused to repair the same and further advised the complainant to visit Tata Motor Workshop at Ghazipur, Patparganj.

4. On 18.04.2015, the complainant went to Ghazipur workshop of OP2, the engineers of OP2 retained the vehicle for one month to verify the cause of  expeditious wear and tear of the tyres. On 15.05.2015, complainant again visited Ghazipur workshop to collect the vehicle in question and after carrying out the minor servicing the Ghazipur workshop handed over the vehicle to the complainant without resolving the issues.

5. On 27.05.2015, complainant again visited Ghazipur workshop as at this juncture the entire grip of the tyres had been disappeared and wires had started coming out of the tyre rendering it completely unfit for use. Complainant requested the workshop to replace the tyre with new one but the workshop show its inability to do so. It is alleged by the complainant that 15 times complainant visited to the various workshop of OP2 for getting repair the vehicle in question, but all in vain. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle has covered only 22000 kms and is having  manufacturing defect as such the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 04.11.2015, the clutch plate of the said vehicle become useless and although the vehicle is in warranty the workshop charge Rs. 3380/- from the complainant against the repairing vide receipt dated 05.11.2016. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle sold by OP2 appeared to suffer manufacturing defect like alignment, low mileage, clutch/gear problem etc. which cannot be removed despite numerous servicing done by various workshop of OP2. It is alleged by the complainant that in the light of aforesaid defects he requested OPs that the vehicle in question should be replaced. The OPs neither redressed the grievance of the complaint nor had replaced the vehicle. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OPs complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

6. Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs. OP1 filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the allegation of the complainant in respect of the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in absence of an expert report, miserably fails and deserve to be dismissed.  It is further stated that the OP1 did not manufacture the tyre and as such the necessary charges of Rs. 750/- was charged and the tyres were replaced as within the warranty.  It is further stated that the alignment issue only arises due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the complainant.  It is further stated that wearing out of clutch plate arises due to the faulty driving habit of the driver. It is further stated that complainant has failed to placed on record any documentary proof which prove that after replacement of tyres the vehicle again showing sign of wear and tear constitute   manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It is further prayed that present complaint be dismissed with cost being frivolous one.

7. OP2 filed its written statement wherein it is stated that the complainant had been using the said vehicle commercially for carrying the passengers numbering 5-6 while the permissible sitting capacity of the vehicle only 3 + D passenger and in the process overloading the vehicle got damaged mechanically as a result of which the alleged fault in the said vehicle cropped up requiring frequent attendance by the workshop to fix repairs and to replace consumables. It is further stated that the brochure supplied with the vehicle stated that the vehicle will provide fuel average of 32 Kms per KG of CNG gas under ideal condition however, as the complainant is using the vehicle on kacha-pakka road connecting the rural areas in the city that too fully overloaded and driving at exceedingly high speed, the complainant did not get the desired mileage.  It is further stated that the vehicle in question does not have any major fault or damage in any manner and the regular wear and tear of the tyres occurred due to rough and unprincipled driving of the complainant. It is further stated that the present complaint be dismissed with cost as it is based on conjecture and surmises.

8. Rejoinder to the WS of both the OPs filed thereby denying the averments made in the WS. Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

9. Sh. Sharmendra Chaudhary Dy. General manager of OP1 filed his evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP1.  Despite opportunity OP2 failed to file its evidence.
10. WA filed by complainant as well as by OP1.

11. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by Sh. Amar counsel for complainant and Sh. Ashok Kumar Mishra counsel for OP1. No one came forward to address the arguments on behalf of OP2.

12. It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OPs delivered defective vehicle to the complainant and as such he is entitled for the relief claim. On the contrary it is argued on behalf of OP1 that as per the terms and conditions in the warranty the vehicle was every time repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any single penny and only charges was levied for consumable goods which are not covered under the warranty. It is further argued that since the complainant has failed to place on record any expert opinion in respect to the manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The present complaint be dismissed with cost.

13. The sole question for our consideration in the present complaint is as to whether the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect as alleged in the complaint.

14. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP3 on 09.03.2015. He has placed on record the copies of the workshop labour invoices dated 18.04.2015, 15.05.2015, 27.05.2015, 06.07.2015, 31.07.2015, 07.09.2015, 07.11.2015 which clearly shows that from the date of purchase i.e. 09.03.2015 the vehicle in question visited the workshop of OP2 seven times with the issue of expeditious wear and tear of the tyres of the vehicle, alignment issue as well as for mileage. The copy of the service history placed on record by the complainant clearly establish that he was compelled to visit the service centre of OP repeatedly for the same issue.

15. The OP1 in its written statement at para9 of reply on merit itself admitted that on 27.05.2015 the complainant visited with the problem of tyre wear high and as such the OP1 replaced the tyres of the said vehicle after charging Rs. 750/- as the vehicle is in warranty. The aforesaid replacement of the tyres by OP on 27.05.2015 despite the fact that the vehicle was purchased only on 09.03.2015 itself proves that the tyres of the vehicle is defective one and the alignment not proper due to which the vehicle is drifting in one direction causing inconvenience as well as endanger to the life of complainant.

16. The copy of the service history placed on record by the complainant clearly shows that the complainant has repeatedly pointed out OP in respect to the high gas consumption and low mileage and as per the job sheet dated 18.04.2015 the engineers of OP found CNG component defective and as such removed the same and installed gas filling valve to removed the defect.

17. The entire date wise events narrated in the complaint clearly establish that from the date of  purchase the vehicle in question was suffering from  manufacturing defect like alignment, low mileage, clutch/gear problem etc. OP1 & 2 had stated in their WS that the alleged defect occurred due to negligent and mishandling of the car by complainant. Despite bare version no documentary evidence has been placed on record by OPs to establish the contention that the defect in the vehicle occurred due to mishandling by the complainant. It is further admitted by the OPs in their written statement that all the defects have been removed or rectified whenever the car is brought to the service station of OP2 and as per the requirement the tyres  of the car was replaced. This clearly establish that the car in question is having the manufacturing defect which OPs failed to rectify resultant in the continuous visit of the car at the service centre of OP2 for repairing compelling us to come to the conclusion that the car in question is substantially impaired on account of the defect.  This is a clear case of res ispa loquitor i.e. facts speak themselves, hence, there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving any expert report.

18. Needless to mention that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 2,99,000/- for the purchase of the vehicle in order to enjoy its fruits in the journey but during the period of 9 months, it was taken to the service station of OP seven times. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that OP1 & 2 sold the defective vehicle to the complainant as such both were liable of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Holding OP1 being the manufacture guilty of unfair trade practice we direct it as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by her.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation cost.

19. OP1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP1 is liable to pay to the complainant interest @9% per annum from the date of non-compliance till realization.

20. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  26.06.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                                   NIPUR CHANDNA    

PRESIDENT                                                                             MEMBER