Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/1/2014

V.krishnamoorthi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TATA Motors Act India and One anther. - Opp.Party(s)

G.Gagadharaj

10 Dec 2014

ORDER

   Date of Filing     : 08.01.2014

                                                                                         Date of Disposal: 10.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.01/2014

 

DECIDED ON THIS 10^th DAY OF DECEMBER  2014.

 

V.Krishnamoorthy

S/o Veerasamy

Calamanalloor Chinnamedu,

Tharangambadi,

Nagapattinam District.                                                         …      Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1. The Manager,

          Tata Motors, ACT India,

          No.2851, Trichy Road,

         Thanjavur.

2. The Branch Manager,

          Tata Motors, ACT India,

          Sirkali Road, Senthangkudi,

          Mayiladuthurai.

3. The Administrative Manager,

          HDFC Bank, Thillai Nagar,

          Tirchy.                                               … Opposite parties

 

                     

 

           

This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 03.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.G.Jagadharaj, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.T.N.Karthikeyan Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party, the 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties having been set exparte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant purchased the Tata Light Weight goods vehicle from the 1^st opposite party on 11.01.2012 for Rs.4,28,850/- having availed the loan amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party and took delivery of the said vehicle on 25.2.2012, the registration number of the vehicle being TN 51L5495. The vehicle had run the distance of 1650 km, when the clutch  guard pin had broken and it was left with the 2^nd opposite party for repairing and servicing, when the vehicle had run 4300 km the clutch plate was crushed and it was left with the 1^st opposite party for 11 days for servicing and repairing and on  13.04.2012, when the vehicle covered 9200 km 2 sets of tyres had become useless and the complainant had to replace the tyres at his own expenses of Rs.18,000/-.  Further when the vehicle covered the distance of 14170 km on 31.05.2012, the gear box had broken and the 2^nd opposite party took 23 days to get the vehicle repaired and serviced and the complainant had to spend the expenses, eventhough the said repairs were carried out during the warranty period itself. 

3. On 26.06.2012 at the coverage of the distance of 20030 km the 2 tyres of the rear wheels had to be replaced at the cost of the complainant himself.  The front wheel tyres set had been replaced by the 2^nd opposite party on 21.08.2012 and Rs.3000/- was received from the complainant.  At the same time the vehicle had to be left at the service station of the 2^nd opposite party, without being used.  On 03.09.2012 as the tyre replaced by the 2^nd opposite party was not aligned properly, the vehicle had to be left at the service station for 15 days in order to correct the suspension system and  the 2^nd opposite party received  Rs.1500/- towards repairing charges. On 06.10.2012 the vehicle again had the tyre alignment problem and was left at the 2^nd opposite party’s service station. The vehicle could not run properly as the chassis and its engine had to be replaced. The vehicle had to be stopped owing to its frequent repairs. On 05.03.2013 as the vehicle tyres were damaged owing to the mechanical defect of the vehicle, the complainant left the vehicle is with the 2^nd opposite party for servicing and repairing and till date the vehicle with the 2^nd opposite party only. The complainant  requested to replace the vehicle for a new one, since the said vehicle had often broken down and tyres got damaged owing to the mechanical basic defect, but the opposite parties did not heed ears to him.  The complainant had suffered from mental agony apart from the loss of income and could not repay the monthly instalments due to be paid to the 3^rd opposite party, the financier, who is also threatening to take back the vehicle from him. Hence the complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to replace the said vehicle with new one, to pay the sum of Rs.10,000,00/- to the complainant for their deficiency of service causing  mental agony and loss of the complainant, to pay the repairing charges spent by the complainant and cost of this litigation and to direct the 3^rd opposite party not to take possession of the vehicle till the disposal of the complaint and to grant such and other reliefs as this Forum would deem fit.

                        4. The gist of the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable against the 3^rd opposite party as there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party as defined under sec.2(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, nor the 3^rd opposite party has  committed  any deficiency of service as defined under sec. 2(g) of the above the said Act. The complainant borrowed the vehicle loan of the sum of Rs.3,60,000/- from the 3^rd opposite party for the purchase of Tata Super ACE vehicle bearing registration no.TN 51L 5495, undertaking to repay the same in 47 equated monthly instalments of Rs.10,555/- each towards the loan account no.20403668. The said amount was disbursed on 29.12.2011. The loan agreement was also made between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party in that regard. As per the agreement if the complainant fails to pay two or more monthly instalments subsequently, the 3^rd opposite party is entitled to repossessions of the vehicle by giving 7 days notice. The complainant failed to repay more than the two monthly instalments subsequently. The 3^rd opposite party is entitled to take possession of the vehicle as he is no way responsible for the alleged loss caused to the complainant owing to the mechanical defect of the vehicle and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party, hence the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

                        5. On the receipt of notice of this complaint, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties failed to appear before this Forum and they were set exparte. The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and has filed 19 documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A19. The 3^rd opposite party has filed his proof affidavit and both of them have filed their respective written arguments.

6. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite  parties?

                       2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

                        7. Point 1: The main allegation of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party has sold the Tata Super ACE vehicle with the basic mechanical defect in the construction of the chassis and engine with the result the vehicle had often broken down for some reason or other and had to be left at the service station for many days for getting the repairing and servicing of it. Even before the vehicle covers the distance to 1650 km the clutch guard pin was broken and even before the covering of the distance of 9200 km, the tyres of the vehicle got damaged and had to be replaced at the cost of Rs.18,000/- which was personally spent by the complainant and subsequently the gear box had also broken and the complainant has spent for repairing and servicing. Eventhough the said defect had taken place during the warranty period itself again the tyres of the vehicle had to be often replaced with new one as the chassis of the vehicle as well as subsequent alignment was not proper causing frequent damage to the tyres of the vehicle.  The request made by the by the complainant for replacement of a new vehicle instead of the defective vehicle with mechanical failure, the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not heed ears to him. Thus the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed the deficiency of service towards the complainant.

                        8.The complainant has filed 19 documents. Exhibit A1 is the Xerox copy of the Form of Certificate of Registration of the said vehicle the registration number bearing TN 51L 5495, Exhibit A2 is the Insurance Certificate of the vehicle, Exhibit A3 is the Order Form dated 24.11.2011 signed by the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle, Exhibit A4 is the letter sent by the Delight Program Center, New Delhi in connection with the dealership of the vehicle, Exhibit A5 is the delivery note of the vehicle sold to the complainant, Exhibit A6 is the Tax Invoice of the vehicle purchased by the complainant, Exhibit A7 is the cover note issued by the New India Assurance Co.Ltd for the said vehicle purchased by the complainant, Exhibit A8 is the Invoice for the sale of the tyres to the complainant by the Sri Krishna Tyres at Karaikal, Exhibit A9 is the  series of receipts given by the 1^st opposite party for the various payments made by the complainant towards purchase of the vehicle, Exhibit A10 is the wheel alignment result, Exhibit A11 is the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party towards payment of service charge of the vehicle. Exhibit A12 is the receipt for the payment of alignment charges for the said vehicle, Exhibit A13 is the receipt for the purchase of 2 tyres from the Devan Agencies, Pudukkottai, Exhibit A14 is the Invoice of the purchase of 2 tyres for the vehicle from the Krishna Tyres, Karaikal, Exhibit A15 is the reply given by the 1^st opposite party to the lawyer’s notice sent by the complainant, Exhibit A16 is the Gate Entry and Inventory Checklist given by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant, Exhibit A17 is the Tax Invoice for purchase of spares for the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party, Exhibit A18 is the receipt given by the 1^st opposite party for the payment of service charge for the vehicle and Exhibit A19 is the  office copy of the notice sent by the complainant through his counsel to the opposite parties 1 and 2.

                        9. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have not appeared before this Forum to resist the claim of the complainant made against them, with the result they have been set exparte. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant read with  said Exhibits A1 to A19 very well prove the allegations made by the complainant that the opposite party 1 has sold the light weight goods vehicle with basic mechanical defect therein. The very failure of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to appear before this Forum to put forth their contentions  as against the allegations of the complainant, gives an inference that the allegations of the deficiency of service made by the complainant as against them, is true and they have no defence to make in their favour.  Therefore the opposite parties have been deficient in their service for having sold the defective Tata Super ACE light weight goods vehicle to the complainant with basic mechanical defect therein.

                        10. The complainant has added his financier who advanced loan to him for the purchase of the vehicle as 3^rd opposite party in this complaint and has also sought for the relief to direct the 3^rd opposite party not to seize the vehicle for non payment of the instalments of the loan due to him.  The 3^rd opposite party having advanced the loan of Rs.3,60,000/- to the complainant in pursuance of the loan agreement signed by him there is  no deficiency of service  on his part. The defective nature of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party has nothing to do with the repayment of the loan to be made by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant having borrowed the loan amount is liable to  regularly pay the monthly instalments without fail notwithstanding the loss or profit, he gets from the usage of the vehicle.  The complainant having entered to an agreement with the 3^rd opposite party undertaking to repay the monthly instalments of the loan without fail is not entitled to seek relief as against the 3^rd opposite party. If the borrower of the vehicle loan has committed default in repayment the financier has got every right to repossession of the vehicle involved for the loan amount advanced by him. Therefore the relief sought by the complainant to restraint the 3^rd opposite party from seizing the vehicle is not maintainable and such relief could not be granted.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as against the 3^rd opposite party.

11. Point 2: In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to deliver jointly or severally  the new Tata light weight goods vehicle of the same category  instead of the mechanically defective Tata Super ACE vehicle bearing the registration no.TN 51L 5495 which is in the custody of the opposite party 2 and to pay the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship and loss of income caused to the complainant owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties 1 and 2, within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the date of its realization.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of this litigation. The complaint as against the 3^rd opposite party is dismissed.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  10^th   day of  December 2014.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.       Nil        : The Xerox copy of the Form of Certificate of Registration of the

  complainant vehicle bearing the registration number TN 51L 5495.

Ex.A2/Dt.05.02.2013: The Xerox copy of the Insurance Certificate of the vehicle given

   by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., to the complainant.

Ex.A3/Dt.24.11.2011: Order Form signed by the complainant for the purchase of the

    vehicle.

Ex.A4/Dt.   Nil           : The Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Delight Program Center,

   New Delhi in connection with the dealership of the vehicle.

Ex.A5/Dt.12.01.2011:The xerox copy of the delivery note of the vehicle sold to the

  complainant given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A6/Dt.31.12.2011: The xerox copy of the Tax Invoice of the vehicle purchased by the

   complainant given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A7/Dt.11.01.2012: The xerox copy of the cover note issued by the New India

 Assurance Co.Ltd for the said vehicle purchased by the     

 complainant.

Ex.A8/Dt.07.07.2012: The Xerox  copy of the the Invoice for the sale of the tyres to the

   complainant given by the Sri Krishna Tyres, Karaikal.

Ex.A9/Dt.11.01.2012: The xerox copy of the  series of payment receipts given by the 1^st

    opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A10/Dt.05.03.2012: The Xerox copy of the the wheel alignment result of the

      complainant’s vehicle, given by the Manatec Electronics Pvt.,

       ltd, Puducherry.  

Ex.A11/Dt.05.03.2012: The Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party

     towards payment of service charges of the complainant’s vehicle

Ex.A12/Dt.     Nil         : The Xerox copy of the the receipt for the payment of alignment

     charges for the complainant’s vehicle given by the Shree

     Krishna 3D wheel Alignment & Water Service, Mayiladuthurai.

Ex.A13/Dt.11.09.2012:The Xerox copy of  the receipt for the purchase of 2 tyres from

     the Devan Agencies, Pudukkottai.

Ex.A14/Dt.27.06.2012: The Xerox copy of the Invoice of the purchase of 2 tyres for the

      complainant’s vehicle from the Krishna Tyres, Karaikal.

Ex.A15/Dt.06.04.2013: The Xerox copy of the  reply given by the 1^st opposite party to

     the complainant’s counsel.

Ex.A16/Dt.21.08.2012: The copy of the Gate Entry and Inventory Checklist given by the

      2^nd opposite party to the complainant

Ex.A17/Dt.16.07.2012:The Tax Invoice for purchase of spares for the complainant’s

    vehicle   given by the 1^st  opposite party to the complainant.

 

 

 

 

Ex.A18/Dt.05.03.2012: The receipt given by the 1^st opposite party for the payment of

     service charge for the complainant’s vehicle to the complainant.

Ex.A19/Dt.29.03.2013: The office copy of the notice sent by the complainant through

      his counsel to the opposite parties 1 and 2

 

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.01/ 2014

Order Dt.:10.12.2014.