STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 297 of 2016

Shree Rajdeo Yadav, S/o- Shree Mahadeo Yadav, Resident of Village- Nawhath, PO- Lohat, PS- Pandol, District- Madhubani

                                                                                                                                                                    … Appellant

Versus

1.  MD, Tata Motors Ltd, Basan House, 3^rd Floor, Nidhi Society, CLT Road, Near SBI Bank chamber, Mumbai- 400007

2. Prop/Manager, Shankar Motor, Plot no. C/1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-1

3. Manager, Astha Motors Work shop, Kumar Distributor Pvt. NH-30, Bypass Nandlal Chapra, Near Gas Godown, Patna

4. Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, REO, Kolkata  

                                                                                                                                                                 …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Pritam Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. C.K. Verma, Adv. Alok Kumar Shahi

With

Appeal No. 297 of 2018

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, 38B, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, 8^th Floor, Himalaya House, Kolkatta (700071)

                                                                                                                                                                         … Appellant

Versus

1.  Rajdeo Yadav, S/o- Sri Mahadeo Yadav, Resident of Village- Nawhath, PS- Pandol, District- Madhubani

2.  MD, Tata Motors Ltd, Basan House, 3^rd Floor, Nidhi Society, CLT Road, Near SBI Bank chamber, Mumbai- 400007

3. Prop/Manager, Shankar Motor, Plot no. C/1, Industrial Area, Patliputra, Patna-1

4. Proprietor/Manager, Astha Motor Workshop, Kumar Distributor Pvt. Ltd, NH30, Byepass, Nandlal Chapra, Gas Godown, Patna   

                                                                                                                                                                         …. Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Alok Kumar Shahi

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. Anil Kumar, Adv. Chitranjan Kumar Verma, Adv. Pritam Kumar

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 26.07.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Appeal no. 297 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of complainant/ appellant for enhancement of the compensation amount  granted by order dated 12.08.2016 passed  by District Consumer Forum, Madhubani in Complaint case no. 110 of 2009 whereas appeal no. 297 of 2018 has been filed by appellant/O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd) for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Madhubani in Complaint case no. 110 of 2009 whereby and whereunder appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 53,484/- with interest @9% p.a and further to pay Rs. 21,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased a Tata Scorpio, Gold Plus Vehicle from Shankar Motors (O.P. no. 2) who is an authorized dealer of Tata Motors (O.P. No. 1) on making payment of Rs. 5,41,710/- on 16.06.2007 for which loan was made available by Finance company under hire purchase agreement. Vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose for earning livelihood.
3. The purchased vehicle started giving trouble while being taken to complainant’s house and Manager of Shankar Motors was telephonically informed on 19.07.2007. Mechanic of Shankar Motor took away the vehicle to service centre at Patna for repair and complainant was assured that vehicle will not give any trouble in future, however, the vehicle kept on giving trouble. Complaint by registered letter dated 30.07.2008 send his complaint to Shankar Motors and Tata Motors. Inspite of frequent repairs the trouble could not be rectified.
4. On 04.05.2009 while returning back to home vehicle met an accident and fell into a ditch and vehicle was completely damaged for which Sanha was lodged in Pandaul PS being Sanha No. 99 of 2009 and Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd (O.P. no. 4) was also informed on telephone. Insurance company directed to send vehicle to workshop of Astha Motors of Raj Motors for cashless service who will repair the vehicle and all payment will be made by insurance company and accordingly complainant left his vehicle in workshop of Astha Motors on 10.05.2009.
5. Astha Motors (O.P. no. 3) prepared estimate of repair of Rs. 4,50,000/- and gave to insurance company but no document was given to complainant. Manager of Astha Motors promised to complete repair work within 30 days but it took 4^1/2 months to repair. Complainant send a legal notice on 28.08.2009 by registered post and thereafter on 23.09.2009 vehicle was handed over to the complainant after making payment of Rs. 53,448/- and his signature was forcibly obtained on paper showing satisfaction of complainant, although, defect in vehicle was not rectified. On 24.09.2009 complaint  wrote to SP of police as well as Reliance Insurance Company about his sufferings. Vehicle is still lying static outside the house of complainant and complainant informed Astha Motors and they assured to take away vehicle for repair but they did not take it to workshop and complainant thereafter send legal notice by registered post on 03.10.2009 to Astha Motors but none came for repair of vehicle  and vehicle is still lying outside his house.
6. Complainant filed a consumer complaint case for refund of price of vehicle as well as payment for compensation and cost of litigation.
7. Notices were issued to opposite parties for their appearance.
8. O.P. no. 1 (Tata Motors) in its written statement stated that vehicle was financed by the opposite party under the hypothecation cum loan agreement. As per loan agreement first installment was fixed as Rs. 14,863/- and rest installment were fixed as Rs. 14,800/-. Complainant defaulted in making the payment of the installments. The total outstanding due against the complainant on 25.02.2010 was at Rs. 1,11,414.29 (Rs. 88,333.60 as overdue installment and Rs. 23,080.69/- as ODC charges) and complaint case has been filed for avoiding the liability under the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.
9. Vehicles manufactured by Tata Motors are of exceptionally good quality. It is only after passing stringent test vehicles are released for sale.
10. O.P. 2 (Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd) in its written statement has stated that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose as such complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Vehicle was purchased by complainant after full satisfaction about the good condition of vehicle. Vehicle was brought for servicing and repairing in the workshop during warranty period and was duly attended.
11.  No expert opinion has been filed to prove any manufacturing defect. Vehicle was purchased on 16.06.2007 and till 11.11.2008 the vehicle ran 50,455 km which establishes that vehicle has no manufacturing defect. Whenever, vehicle was brought it was immediately and to satisfaction of complainant was repaired. Vehicle met with accident on 04.05.2009 and the case has been filed on 30.11.2009 after lapse of such a long period to get insurance claim only. Service history of vehicle proves vehicle to be running smoothly.
12. O.P. no. 3 & 4 did not appear and case proceeded ex-parte against them.
13. After hearing the parties and considering materials available on record the District Consumer Forum held that the vehicle was insured with O.P. no. 4 for the period from 16.06.2008 to 15.06.2009 and accident took place on 05.05.2009 within said period for which sanha was also lodged in Pandaul PS being Sanha no. 99 of 2009. O.P. no. 4 was informed about the accident and as per its direction the damaged vehicle was send and left over in the workshop of O.P. no. 3 on 10.05.2009. O.P. no. 3 prepared the estimate for repair of Rs. 4.5 lacs and got the claim registered. O.P.no. 3 retained the vehicle for about 4^1/2 months after realizing Rs. 53,484/- although vehicle was insured and loss was to be compensated by insurance company and vehicle was to be repaired on cashless basis.
14. The District Consumer Forum absolved opposite party no. 1 and 2 from any deficiency in service but found opposite party no. 3 and 4 to have been deficient in service and accordingly directed opposite party no. 3 &4 to refund Rs. 53,484/- with interest, the repair charge realized from complainant as vehicle was insured and cashless service was to be provided to complainant and further directed to pay Rs. 21,000/- toward compensation for mental torture and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of litigation.
15. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 12.08.2016 passed in Complaint case no. 110 of 2009 opposite party no. 4 has preferred appeal no. 297 of 2018 for setting aside the order whereas complainant has preferred appeal no. 297 of 2016 for enhancement of compensation.  
16. It is submitted on behalf of appellant/O.P. no. 4 in appeal no. 297 of 2018 that O.P. no. 4/appellant never received any notice in complaint case no. 110 of 2009. Respondent had not submitted final repair bill to the appellant till date, No repair bill of the vehicle was submitted.
17. It is submitted on on behalf of appellant/complainant in appeal no. 297 of 2016 that during warranty period the vehicle became defective several times and inspite of several complaints it was not repaired. Documents produced were not considered in right perspective. It is for the District Forum to send sample to the lab for testing to get expert report about manufacturing defect.
18. Heard the parties
19. The contention of appellant/O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd)  that they had no knowledge of the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum is not acceptable as two of the opposite parties Tata Motors (O.P. no. 1) and Shankar Motors (O.P. no. 2) had appeared and contested the proceeding.
20. Appellant/O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ) has admitted that on date of accident the vehicle was insured. Appellant/O.P. no. 4 no where have controverted that complainant had not intimated about the accident and on their direction damaged vehicle was brought to the Astha Motor workshop for repair. Appellant has also not denied that estimate cost of Rs. 4.5 for repair was prepared by the workshop (O.P. no. 3) which is authorized workshop of the Tata Motors/Shankar Automobiles where cashless repair was available.
21. The statement of appellant /O.P. no. 4 (Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ) in appeal that final bill was not submitted is sufficient to infer that appellant was aware of accidental vehicle being under repair in workshop (O.P. no. 3) if final bill was not submitted it was fault of workshop (O.P. no. 3) and not the complainant and as such the finding recorded by District Consumer Forum to refund the amount with interest paid by complainant to O.P. no. 3 when the vehicle was insured does not call for any interference.
22. The vehicle was sold on 18.06.2007, warranty expired on 18.01.2008 and complaint was filed in 2009 i.e after expiration of warranty period. After accident the vehicle was brought to the service centre at Kumar Distribution Pvt. Ltd. on 22.06.2009 and after carrying necessary repairs it was handed over to the complainant on 23.09.2009. From 20.06.2007 to 11.2008 vehicle was brought for scheduled service to the service centre of Shankar Motors Pvt. Ltd. 11 times for mandatory free services as well as on 8 occasion for carrying out running repair and vehicle had covered a distance of 50,455 km as such there cannot be any manufacturing defect. Further no expert opinion was produced by complainant.
23. Service history indicates that all complain with respect to purchased vehicle was duly addressed providing adequate and necessary service for resolving all issues arising in maintenance of vehicle.
24. On the basis of evidences available on record the District Consumer Forum has held that there is no manufacturing defect in the purchased vehicle. There is no expert report as required to prove manufacturing defect. Vehicle has travelled 50,455 km for period from 16.06.2007 to 11.11.2008 as such there cannot be any manufacturing defect as no complaint was filed during the warranty period and complaint was filed only after accident of the vehicles as such there is no deficiency in service on behalf of O.P. no. 1 & 2.
25. The judgment and order dated 12.08.2016  passed by District Consumer forum is well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of evidences available on record and requires no interference in appeal.
26. For the reasons as stated above both appeal being Appeal no. 297 of 2016 Appeal no. 297 of 2018 are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                   (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                    President

Md. Fariduzzama