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

========

Sameer Vasudeva Partner M/s Satyam Enterprises, SCF No.13, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Tata Motors through its Authorised Dealer, M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot NO.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

2]  M/s Joshi Autozone, Plot NO.84-85, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   P.L. AHUJA                    PRESIDENT

RAJINDER  SINGH  GILL            MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA    MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel for complainant.

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

Sh.Davinder Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP-2.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         In brief, the complainant purchased Tata Safari EX Car from OP-2, for Rs.8,84,223/- vide Sale Certificate Ann.C-1, after getting it financed from Tata Motors. It is averred that the said car developed the following problems from the first day of purchase:-

a.  That on 29.11.2010, the date of the purchase of the car, the Air Conditioning switch of the car was faulty and had to be replaced on the 1^st day itself.

b.  The digital watch of the car was faulty and had to be replaced/repaired within the 1^st week of purchase of the car.

c.  That there was tinkering noise in the engine compartment of the car and had to be rectified by engineers after about 3-4 visits to the opposite party.  The nuts of the mounting were ill fitted and same had to be replaced within 1^st month of the purchase of the car.

d.  That during the month of December, 2010, within 15-20 days of the purchase of the car, the air started leaking from the front windscreen and the same was rectified by putting fresh sealant in the gap by engineers of the opposite party.

e.  That the said car developed serious rattling noise problem from the engine compartment within first week and the car was taken to opposite party for repairs but till date after more than 20-25 visits nothing has been done in the matter by the opposite party.

        The complainant averred that he got the car repair against the job cards at 122 Kms., 1680 Kms., 6817 kms. and 7659 kms. (Ann.C-2) respectively.  The car was giving rattling noise problem from the engine to which OPs failed to give any reply.  The complainant alleged that the said car is defective and he had to suffer a lot of harassment and even paid Rs.7000/- on 29.11.2010 for getting the extended warranty.  As per the complainant, the OPs have sold a defective car and have failed to replace the same with new car despite his repeated requests and visits.  Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 17.5.2011 (Ann.C4), but to no effect.  Hence, this complaint.

2]         OP No.1 filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has made misconceived & baseless allegations of defect in the vehicle with regard to engine noise, replacement of nuts, A.C. Switch etc. of the vehicle, poor pick up, noise in engine, without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory.  It is pleaded that the vehicle has been extensively used by the complainant for commercial activities and that the same is not suffering from any manufacturing defect.  It is also pleaded that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is of the highest quality and the complainant took the delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle & performance.  It is averred that there were minor problems in the car, which were repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant by OP-2 as is evident from the job cards.  It is also averred that OP-2 is issuing the bills with 0000 amount and is maintaining the records of all the visits 0f the customers.  Rest of the allegations of the complainant have been denied, with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         OP No.2 also filed written statement on the identical lines of OP No.1 and took almost the same pleas.   However, it has been pleaded that all job cards i.e. Ex.R-1 to R-7 falsifies the assertions made by the complainant.  It is also pleaded that the vehicle is a perfect merchantable automobiles and is free from any defect.  It is submitted that the vehicle is suffering from any defect and the same is running perfectly, therefore, there is no question of replacing the same with new one. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]       The sole grouse of the complainant is that the vehicle is giving problem on one account or the other from the very beginning of its purchase. It is contended that even the engine of the vehicle in question is giving abnormal & rattling noise from the day of its purchase. However, the OPs failed to rectify the said defects.

6]       On the other hand, the OPs have refuted the allegations made by the complainant regarding any noise in the engine of the vehicle and denied that the vehicle is suffering from any inherent/manufacturing defect, as alleged.

7]       This Forum vide order dated 09.02.2012 referred the vehicle to Punjab Engineering College, Sector 12, Chandigarh, to get the vehicle Tata Safari bearing Regd. NO.CH-01AF-3541 examined and to opine whether there are defects in the car as alleged by the complainant or not and the charges were to be paid by the Complainant to the said College Authorities. 

8]       Thereafter, the Expert Opinion/Report from Mechnical Engg. Deptt., PEC University of Technology. Chandigarh was received on 19.4.2012. This Expert Opinion has been furnished by Dr.V.P.Singh, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt. PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, Sh.Sushant Samir, Assistant Prof. & Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I.

9]       The said expert opinion/report (now marked as ‘X’) placed on record is reproduced as under:-

    “The vehicle (tata Safari) was presented for inspection on 18.04.2012 at 11.30 A.M. in Mechnical Engineering Department of the Institute, having registration No.CH-01-AFORESAID-3541 , Engine No.22LDICOR06NZYJ22606 and Chasis No.MAT403723ANN12829. Sh.Sameer Vasudev, Complainant was present where as no persons from other parties were present.

    The vehicle was inspected and test driven for about nine kilometers.  Sh.Sameer Vasudeva Complainant accompanied the committee during test drive.  During the test drive the committee observed that the rattling sound was coming through engine between the speed of 40 KM/hr to 80 Km/hr as alleged by the complainant.”

10]      The objections of the OPs have been duly considered and gone through.  The objection of the OPs about the removal of catalytic convertor by the complainant is totally appears to be an after thought. The complainant had already reported the problem in the vehicle to the OPs a number of time, but the same was not rectified.  More so, the objection furnished by the OPs is not supported by any expert report/opinion of an Independent Agency. Mere furnishing of objections to the said Experts, which too is a subjective approach only, is of no help to the OPs.  The OPs have also taken another objection to the effect that Punjab Engineering College is not an authorized laboratory. The said objection is not at all tenable. The OPs have not taken any such objection at the time of referring the vehicle to the said Institute for examination & report nor thereafter till the receipt of the report from there.  Such an order was passed way back on 09.02.2012 and the OPs neither raised any objection at that time nor challenged the said order, on such ground. Moreover, the said Institution is a Deemed University known as PEC University of Technology having its separate Department of Mechanical Engineering Department dealing with automobiles.

11]      Furthermore, the expert report, reproduced above, was prepared & presented by Dr.V.P.Singh, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engg. Deptt. PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh, Sh.Sushant Samir, Assistant Prof. & Sh.Gopal Dass, W.I., who are well qualified and experienced persons, working in one of the prestigious & renowned Institution.  The said report is more explicit, detailed, weighty, genuine and believable.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the expert report, referred to above. In view of the foregoings, it is held that the engine of the vehicle is suffering from serious defect.

12]      In view of the foregoing discussion & findings, we opined that the engine of the vehicle in question is suffering from serious/inherent defect, as a result the engine was giving rattling noise. Consequently, the complainant had to undergo a lot of physical harassment, mental tension as well as forced to enter into unnecessary litigation on this account.  Thus, the deficiency in service, on the part of OPs, is writ large. We therefore allow this complaint. The OPs are jointly & severally, directed as under:-

i)  To replace the entire engine of the vehicle in question with brand new engine having prescribed/due warranty, free of cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the vehicle from the complainant.  The complainant shall take the car in question to the workshop of OP No.1 within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 

ii) To pay a sum of Rs.22472/- to the complainant, which he had been paid to PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh for getting the vehicle inspected, as per their demand made vide letter dated 30.3.3012   (Marked as Y).

iii) To pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to jointly & severally pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.06.2011 till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

iii) In case the OPs failed to comply with the order as at Para No.12(i), then they would be liable to refund the cost of the car at which rate it was sold to the complainant.

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