Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/96/2016

Santhosh.M.P S/o Prasannakumar.M.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,Vin Auto,Tata Motors Dealers - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

28 Oct 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:17.10.2016

DISPOSED      ON:28.10.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 96/2016

 

DATED:  28^th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	Santhosh. M.P, S/o Prasannakumar M.P, Major, Owner and Driver of TATA Indica Vista bearing Regn. No.KA-16-C-1785, Ganga Honna, 1st Cross, JCR Extension, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri. P.S.Sathyanarayana, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Tata Authorized Signatory, Vin Auto, Tata Motors Dealers, Bheemasamudra Road, Chitradurga.   2. Tata Authorized Signatory, Vin Auto, Gubbi Gate, B.H. Road, Tumkur-572101.   3. Tata Authorized Signatory, Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., No.46, 47 and 48, Karnataka Industrial Area, Dev Voard, NH-4, Chitradurga.   4. Tata Authorized Signatory, Tata Motors Regional Office, Corporate Office, 2nd Floor, Fortune Summit, 244, HSR Lay-out, 6th Phase, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560 102.   5. Tata Authorized Signatory, Tata Motors, Motor Vehicle Dealer, Mumbai Pune By-Pass Road, Dhankawadi, Opp: to D-Mart, Pune, Maharashtra State.   (As per the memo filed by the advocate for complainant, complaint as against OP No.5 is dismissed) (Rep by Sri.K.N. Vishwanathaiah, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2, Sri. L.Madhusudhan for OP No.3, Sri. P.S. Manjunath, Advocate for OP No.5)

ORDER

SRI. T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT     

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to repay the amount of vehicle, to direct the Ops to pay Rs. 80,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a towards loss of business, repairs, replacement of spare parts etc., from the date of complaint till realization, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 06.01.2015, the complainant has purchased Tata Indica Vista Car bearing registration No.KA-16-C-1785, engine No.47511DT14KVYP41995 and chassis No.MAT60853ELK25251 by availing a loan from the Central Bank of India Chitradurga.  The complainant has taken delivery of the vehicle from the OP No.1.  At the time of delivering the vehicle, the OP No.1 has promised that, vehicle is in a good condition.  After purchase of the vehicle, it started giving problem and frequently going for repairs like some noise and engine problems etc.  The complainant has left the vehicle for repairs before OP No.3.  After repair the complainant taken the vehicle for running and used the vehicle for his livelihood.  The family of the complainant is entirely depending upon the earnings of said vehicle.  The complainant has spent nearly Rs.3,00,000/- for repairs and other charges.  But, again and again the problems arising in the said vehicle.  The complainant was running the vehicle nearly 90000 KMs.  The complainant was using the vehicle for transporting the passengers.  The complainant left the vehicle for repair before OP No.2 also.  OP No.2 promised that, there is no problem in the vehicle.  After repair again the same problem occurred.  Again the complainant left the above said vehicle for repair before OP No.3.  Now the vehicle is with the OP No.3 and it is not possible to get it repair by the OP No.3.  On 19.06.2016, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs.  In the said notices, the complainant has stated that, the OP No.1 has supplied the defective vehicle.  The notices issued by the complainant were served to the OPs on 20.09.2016.  OP No.3 replied by denying the allegations made by the complainant.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 27.09.2016 when the OP No.3 has replied the notice served by the complainant which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, the complaint and prayed for allowing the complaint.      

3.     After service of notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through their Advocate Sri. K.N. Vishwanathaiah, Sri. L. Madhusudhan appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and Sri. P.S. Manjunath appeared on behalf of OP No.4 before this Forum.  As per the memo filed by the complainant, the complaint as against OP No.5 is dismissed as not pressed. 

4.     OP No.1 and 2 have filed their version and stated that, the allegations made by the complaint in para 1 to 9 are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased the Tata Vista Indica model with TDI engine number from OP No.1 for Taxi purpose, manufactured by OP No.5 Tata Motors.  OP No.5 is a repudiated company and is manufacturing different types of vehicles since from more than 25 years.  The vehicle purchased by the complainant was approved by the expert technical team.  The defects found in the vehicle is utterly false.  The OP No.1 is the branch of the OP No.1 having both sales and services.  After purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant has not maintained the same as per the instructions of the OPs.  The complainant has left the vehicle with OP No.1 in two occasions i.e., on 07.01.2015 and 17.01.2015 for services.  By that time, the vehicle was run nearly 6000 KMs.  The complainant has left the vehicle before OP No.3 for services after lapse of 17 to 18 months.  By that time, the vehicle was run nearly 19000 KMs.  The complainant was not properly maintained the vehicle and he is not driving the vehicle as per the instructions of the OPs.  He never change the gear properly and without changing the oil and other engine parts well in time and he never change the coolant level pump cleaning, engine oil, oil filter well in time as per the instructions given in the manual book.  The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because the complainant purchased the vehicle for running the same for commercial purpose.  The complainant is having already other two vehicles to run the same for commercial purpose.  So, this complaint is not sustainable under law as the complainant is not a consumer.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     OP No.3 filed its version stating that, the allegations made in para 1 to 9 are denied as false.  It is submitted that, the complainant had employed drivers for his business of Taxi and the drivers were not properly driving the car and they are not maintaining the vehicle in a prudent manner.  On account of rash and negligent driving there might have been some smoke.  When the complainant bring the vehicle before OP No.3, by that time the vehicle run 70000 KMs.  By that time, the complainant is not properly maintained the vehicle.  OP No.3 has repaired the said vehicle and handed over the same to the complainant.  Again the complainant bring the vehicle for same problem and left the same before him.  Now the vehicle is with the OP No.3.  On 17.09.2016, the complainant issued the legal notice to the complainant to come and take the vehicle but, the complainant did not turn up.  Again on 26.09.2016 OP No.3 has issued another notice to the complainant to come and take the vehicle.  On 24.10.2016, OP No.3 has tested for emission at Sai Automobiles, near RTO Office, Chitradurga.  The emission test shows that, there is no smoking in the vehicle.  On 28.10.2016, OP No.3 has issued another notice to the complainant to come and take the car, the car was in good condition through his advocate.  The complainant is running the vehicle for commercial purpose.  Hence, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

6.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-5.  On behalf of OP No.1 and 2 Sri. S. Vasanth has examined as DW-1 and relied on documents like Ex.B-1 to B-5 documents.  One behalf of OP No.3 Sri.M.M. Rajesh, Director, Durga Car Services Pvt. Ltd., has examined as DW-2 by filing affidavits and Ex.B-1 to B-11 documents have been got marked.

7.     Arguments heard. 

8.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.3 has sold the defective vehicle and OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        9.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

10.   It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of car bearing Reg. No.KA-16 C-1785 and the same has been purchased from OP No.1 by availing loan from the Central Bank of India, Chitradurga.  After purchasing the said car, it started giving problem i.e., engine sound, smoking etc.  The complainant left the said vehicle before OP No.2 for service.  After service done by the OP No.2, again the same problem arise in the vehicle.  Again the complainant has left the vehicle before OP No.3 for repair.  After repair, the OP No.3 handed over the vehicle to complainant.  Again the same problem arose in the vehicle.  Finally, the complainant left the vehicle before OP No.3.  The complainant himself has spent nearly Rs.3,00,000/- for repair and other charges.  The complainant purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood and his family is depending upon the earnings of said vehicle.  The documents produced by the complainant shows that, he has purchased the same from OP No.1.  There is no dispute between OP No.1 to 3 and the complainant about purchasing of the vehicle by the complainant.  As per Ex.A-1 produced by the complainant shows that, somany times, the complainant let the vehicle before OP No.1 and 3 for repair.  Ex.A-2 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the OPs.  On 27.09.2016, OP No.3 send the reply as per Ex.A-3 to the complainant denying the allegations made in the notice.  Ex.A-4 and 5 are the postal acknowledgements and postal receipts produced by the complainant.  OP No.1 and 2 have agreed that, complainant has purchased the vehicle from them.  After purchasing the said car, the complainant used the vehicle by rash and negligent manner.  The complainant has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the manual.  According to the OPs, the complainant had run the vehicle by rash and negligent manner and without changing the engine oil and other parts well in time.  OP No.1 and 2 also relied upon the documents like Ex.B-1 to B-6 those documents clearly shows that, the OP No.1 and 2 have attended the vehicle for service.  Finally, the complainant has left the vehicle for repairs.  OP No.3 has produced Ex.B-6 to B-11 documents, those documents clearly shows that the vehicle wasnot in a good condition.  But as per the history of service i.e., Ex.A-3, the vehicle was repaired so-many times, which goes to show that, the OP No.1 has sold the defective vehicle to the complainant.  But after purchasing the same, the complainant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and within 17 to 18 months, the complainant was driving the vehicle up to 90000 KMs.  It shows that, the complainant was driving the vehicle by rash and negligent manner.  But anyhow, the Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP No.1 has sold the defective vehicle.  After deducting depreciation, the Forum comes to the conclusion that the OP No.1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.  Now the vehicle is with the OP No.3.  OP No.3 is ready to hand over the vehicle to the complainant.  The complainant has filed a memo for dismissing the complaint against OP No.5 as not pressed.  OP No.2 and 4 are only a formal parties to the proceedings.  There is no direct relief claimed against OP No.4. 

11.   We have gone through the entire pleadings, documents and affidavits filed by both parties.  As per the documents, there is no dispute between both the sides that, the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.1.  As per Ex.A-3, the history of service of vehicle shows that, the vehicle was repaired for so-many times, it shows that, the OP No.1 has supplied the defective vehicle to the OP No.1.  But the complainant has also committed a mistake that within 17 to 18 months, the complainant had run nearly 90000 KMs, it shows that, the complainant has also run the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.  Now the vehicle is with OP No.3.   Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service in selling defective vehicle.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

 

          12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for sale of defective vehicle to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to hand over the defective vehicle to the complainant without collecting any service charge and parking charge.

Complaint filed as against OP No.2, 4 and 5 are hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 28/10/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. S. Vasanth by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:- Sri.M.M. Rajesh by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Service history
02	Ex.A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 19.09.2016
03	Ex.A-3:-	Reply notice dated 27.09.2016
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal acknowledgements
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1 to 4:-	Job Slips dated 02.01.2015 and 17.01.2015
02	Ex.B-5:-	Manual and Service Book
03	Ex.B-6:-	Emission test report dated 24.10.2016
04	Ex.B-7:-	Feed Back Chart
05	Ex.B-8:-	Letter dated 12.09.2015 by complainant
06	Ex.B-9:-	Letter dated 28.10.2015 by OP No.3
07	Ex.B-10:-	Postal receipts and acknowledgements
08	Ex.B-11:-	Mileage Test Bill

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**