BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 206/2007 Filed on 03.10.2007

Dated: 30.08.2014

Complainant:

 

Sarva Shiksha Abiyan (SSA), represented by its State Project Director Mr. Vijayakumar, Office of SSA, Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

                               (By adv. A. Abdul Kharim)

Opposite parties:

 

1. Tata Motors, Commercial Division, 26^th floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffie Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

   (By adv. S. Reghukumar)

2. Kulathungal Motors, represented by its Manager, Kuravankonam, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

    (By adv. Nair Ajaykrishnan)   

This C.C having been heard on 07.08.2014, the Forum on 30.08.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant is an educational venture engaged in providing training for teachers in different subjects run by the government, that complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo LX Euro II Artic Silver having registration No. KL-01 AJ 5683, a make of the 1^st opposite party Tata Motors, Mumbai by virtue of an agreement dated 01.08.2005executed by the 2^nd opposite party Kulathungal Motors, Kuravankonam with complainant by paying the amount in the sum of Rs. 5,32,442/-, that the complainant was inclined to purchase the said car believing the advertisements and words of representation of the opposite parties about the features of the car such that the car has got a mileage of 22 km per liter, the vehicle has got a power of 70 bhp at 4500 pm which pulls the vehicle at any road with a minimum speed, that at the first instance itself the car started giving problems like its engine fuel pump was not working properly resulting in the decrease of the promised mileage, its air conditioning system had serious technical problems and the vehicle when it reaches high level road or uphill engine jerks and stops due to lack of the promised power, that the vehicle was not at all roadworthy and complainant could not put the vehicle for use of long trips, that complainant reported all the complaints to 2^nd opposite party at its first service, that even after repair works the same problem repeated after a few days, that again complainant informed the said problems to the 2^nd opposite party on the date of second service, that even though opposite party could satisfy the complainant for a few days, the problem persisted and recurred.  Thereafter the car’s A/C was not working due to the block in the engine pump and the same was reported during its 7^th service.  Though gas of A/C unit was refilled it did not work due to leakage of A/C gas, that in the meanwhile the engine fuel pump was opened at three different occasions, that complainant being fed up with the frequent problems and repairs had informed the position to both the opposite parties and required to replace the car.  No effective steps were taken by opposite parties despite several communications and reminders addressing the issue to both the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party had sent a letter dated 07.05.2007 stating that the recitals of the letter would suggest that the car had fuel system related trouble.  Complainant had even sent a legal notice on 07.07.2007 to both opposite parties requiring either to replace the car or to refund the sum of money expended towards the repair work, but opposite parties replied in the negative, that complainant took the car to Focuz Motors, which is also an authorized service agent of Tata Motors for detailed check up and repair the defects.  On enquiry Focuz Motors informed through letter dated 18.07.2007 that the vehicle needs engine overhauling to rectify the engine jerking and vibration on cold condition, that on receipt of the said letter the car was handed over to Focuz Motors where repair works were done, parts of the car were replaced all with a cost of Rs. 35,359/- and the amount had to be paid from the fund of the complainant department, that complainant was saddled with liability to spend a huge amount of money towards the constant repair works of the car and it was clearly due to defective manufacture of the car and that of deficiency in service of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund the cost of the car by taking back the vehicle and to give Rs. 50,000/- expended towards cost of repair works along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for frustration and mental agony. 

Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending that the vehicle purchased had warranty for one year from the date of purchase as provided by the 1^st opposite party, that averments in the complaint will disclose that complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party, that officers of the complainant had personally inspected the vehicle and only after being satisfied with the same, booked for the vehicle, that 1^st opposite party does not admit the allegation of the complainant that on each occasion that the vehicle was in the workshop, that complainant had to hire other vehicles after paying huge amounts, that there was no defect, much less, manufacturing defect in the vehicle and that complainant is not entitled to seek replacement of the vehicle and such of those complaints found existing in the vehicle, being minor in nature, were attended to the satisfaction of the complainant.  There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the complaint. 

2^nd opposite party contends that there was no defect whatsoever on the said vehicle.  It is solely an imagination of the complainant.  The services include regular services and checkups done as goodwill gestures and all the services are done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant which the complainant has acknowledged.  The engine fuel pump of the complainant’s vehicle is in good condition and no parts have been replaced except for usual cleaning works done at the instance of the complainant.  The reliefs claimed by the complainant are false and unsustainable in law.  Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs. 

 The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the car is having manufacturing defect?

2. Whether the defects are curable?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the vehicle replaced with a new one?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

In support of the complaint, the Administrative Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abiyan has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P8.  In rebuttal both the opposite parties have filed their proof affidavits. 

Points (i) to (iv):- There is no dispute on the point that complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo LX Euro II having Reg. No. KL-01 AJ 5683, a make of the 1^st opposite party by virtue of an agreement dated 01.08.2005 executed by the 2^nd opposite party with the complainant by paying the amount in the sum of Rs. 5,32,442/-.  The very case of the complainant is that the vehicle developed problems like its engine fuel pump was not working properly resulting in the decrease of promised mileage, problems in the air condition system, engine jerks and stops when it reaches high level road or uphill and the car was not at all roadworthy and complainant could not put the vehicle for use of long trips.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant has led evidence by oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P8.  Ext. P1 is the copy of the agreement between the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant.  Ext. P1 was marked subject to proof on the ground that it is a photocopy.  As per agreement the price of the car is Rs. 5,32,442/-.  Ext. P2 is the copy of the order dated 21.03.2007 addressed to 2^nd opposite party by the complainant.  As per Ext. P2 the vehicle was sent to the workshop for the repair work such as engine pump block, A/C repairing and 7^th service.  Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 30.04.2007 written to Arun Nawal, Commercial manager, Tata Motors, Mumbai by the State Project Director requiring to replace the vehicle immediately.  Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 05.05.2007 addressed to Sri. Sunil, Customer Relations Manager of the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter sent by Focuz Motors to the complainant stating that vehicle needs engine overhauling to rectify engine jerking and vibration on cold condition.  Ext. P6 series are bills issued by Focuz Motors on various dates, ie. 07.07.2007, 31.07.2007 and 08.08.2007.  Ext. P7 series are various bills issued by Madathil Travels which were marked subject to objection.  Ext. P8 series is service history details of the 2^nd opposite party.  Opposite parties have led evidence by proof affidavit.  The very stand of the opposite party is that the vehicle is in good condition.  There was no defect whatsoever on the said vehicle and the services include regular services and checkups and all the services were done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant which the complainant is acknowledged and no parts have been replaced as engine fuel pump of the vehicle is in good condition.  The vehicle was not subjected to any expert opinion which is mandatory under Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.  It is pertinent to point out that the allegation raised in the complaint is in regard to manufacturing defects, refund of repair cost and deficiency in service.  There is no material on record to show that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects.  The onus is on the part of the complainant to prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle in dispute.  No expert opinion sought by complainant to establish that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect.  Though complainant has produced Ext. P8 series showing service history, the job code details reveal that the vehicle was brought to the service centre on 25.03.2006 for third service.  The said job code of the relevant date contains description such as Assy. Oil filter TC (Elofic), Diesel engine oil (Castrol), brake oil, universal dot 3 HP.  Service history dated 17.07.2006 shows complaint description such as excessive tyre road noise, under carriage noise and scheduled service etc.  Service dated 10.11.2006 contains complaint description such as scheduled service, steering wheel vibrates/wobbles, vehicle pulls to one side, under carriage noise, dashboard rattling etc.  The job code details reveals services done by the repairer.  Service history dated 16.02.2007 describes complaints such as poor pick-up, fuel average low, A/C cooling insufficient etc.  The same problems are noted in the service history dated 27.03.2007.   It is pertinent to point out that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2005.  According to opposite party the vehicle had a warranty for one year.  Complainant has not produced the warranty issued by the opposite party.  The onus is on the part of the complainant to show that the vehicle in dispute suffered manufacturing defect.  Complainant has failed to prove by cogent and credible evidence supported by expert opinion that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defects.  There is no material on record to show the present condition of the vehicle also.  Expert opinion is a must for determining manufacturing defects of the vehicle in dispute.  Without expert opinion Forum cannot come to the conclusion that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect.  Complainant failed to establish the complaint which deserves to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.  Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of August 2014.

 

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

 

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

 

jb

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 206/2007

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - K. Somarajan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of agreement between 2^nd O.P and complainant

P2     - Copy of order dated 21.03.2007 addressed to 2^nd O.P by complainant

P3     - Copy of letter dated 30.04.2007.

P4     - Copy of letter dated 05.05.2007.

P5     - Copy of letter dated 18.07.2007.

P6(series)- Bills issued by Focuz Motors ( 3 Nos.)

P7(series)- Bills issued by Madathil Travels (4 Nos.)

P8(series)- Service history details of 2^nd O.P

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Shaji Valassery

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

 

                                                                                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb