Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/198/2018

N.Malairaja - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman , Tata motors Ltd.& others - Opp.Party(s)

G.Mohankrishnan

08 Nov 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :30.09.2008                    Date of disposal            :08.11.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

          PRESENT :       THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                       : MEMBER-I

                           THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.198/2018

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 08^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

N.Malairaja,

S/o.Mr.Nallamuthu,

No.48, Distillery Street,

“Mangala Kudiruppu”

Thatchanallur,

Tirunelveli District-627 006.

                                                                                                       …..Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Chairman,

Tata Motors Ltd.,

Marketing and Customer Support,

Passenger Car Business Unit,

8^th floor, Center No.1,

World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade,

Mumbai-400 005.

 

2. The Manager,

Tata Motors  Ltd.,

7^th floor, Kasi Aracade,

# 116, Theyagaraya Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

 

3. The Managing Director,

Concorde  Motors (India) Ltd.,

# 38, Velacherry Road,

Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

                                                                                 …..Opposite Parties

                                                                 

 

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. Mohan Krishnan

 

Counsel for  opposite party  1 and 2           : M/s. Satish Parasaran and 2 other

Counsel for  opposite party  3                     : M/s. V.Annalakshmi.

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER II:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1040958/- paid by the complainant towards purchase of the said vehicle together with interest and to  pay a sum of Rs.300000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.200000/- towards the hardship, mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant due to the faulty vehicles of the opposite parties and to pay cost.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 474/2008.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.198/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a Member of Legislative Assembly, elected from Tirunelveli Assembly Constituency necessitated to own a vehicle to service the people in his constituency and general public had booked a TATA SAFARI-VX-4X2 vehicle, Cycus Grey Colour with 3^rd opposite party by obtaining a vehicle loan and paid a sum of Rs.10,40,958/- towards cost of the vehicle.  The 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant to take delivery of TATA SAFARIVX-4X2 Cycus Grey Colour bearing chassis No.403093JSZ18850 and engine No. 2.2LDICOR06JSZ719649, from their show room.  When the complainant visited the 3^rd opposite party showroom on 22.10.2007 to take delivery of vehicle, to his shock and surprise the 3^rd opposite party informed that the said vehicle could not be delivered due to steering problem in the vehicle TATA SAFARI-VX-4X2 bearing chassis No.403093JSZ18850 and engine No. 2.2LDICOR06JSZ719649 which has been mentioned in the invoice issued by the 3^rd opposite party.  At the instance of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party agreed to deliver some other vehicle on the same Model and on 23.10.2007 he had taken delivery of the other new vehicle TATA SAFARI-VX4X2 Cycus Grey Colourbearing Chassis No.403093KSLN14406 and Engine No. 2.2LDOCOR06KSZ724398.  Within a week of delivery, when the complainant was proceeding from Madurai to Tirunelveli, all of a sudden he noticed some sort of strange noise coming out of the said vehicle and he had taken the vehicle to nearest authorized service station of the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party namely M/s. Kumaran Automobiles at Tirunelveli wherein they found that there was crack in the chassis of the said vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party dragged the complainant from pillar to post without giving any proper response or reply and after great difficulty the complainant was managed to talk with the officials of 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party and after repeated contacts by the complainant, the1^st and 2^nd opposite partys agreed to replace with another vehicle TATA SAFARI VX 4X2, Cycus Grey Colourbearing chassis No. 403093KSZN14950 and Engine No. 2.2LDICOR06KSZ725887 on 28.11.2007.  When the complainant was travelling in Chennai at Anna Salai on 15.04.2008, the vehicle got break down in front of the Spencer Plaza and immediately contacted the 3^rd opposite party and the mechanics from 3^rd opposite party came to the spot and towed the vehicle to the service station at Ambattur.  Subsequently the 3^rd opposite party informed that the engine belt and timing belt in the vehicle were cut and the PULLY in the vehicle had broken.  On 18.04.2008 the 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant that the defects were rectified and changed the modified PULLY and assured the complainant that there will not be any problem hereafter in the said vehicle.  The complainant further states that on 04.05.2008, when the complainant returning from Munnar to Chennai, and when the vehicle was reached Dindigul at about 10.00 pm,all of a sudden, the vehicle was stranded in the middle of road and the same could not be restarted again.  The complainant reached Chennai by some other mode of transport to attend the Assembly session.  On 05.05.2008, the complainant informed the local authorized service centre at Dindigul namely AR.A.S.P.V.P.V through his assistant to the attend the fault.  Subsequently the said vehicle was towed by the said service station person but failed and neglected to inform the defects in the said vehicle.  The complainant states that he came to know subsequently that the said vehicle was towed away to Madurai from Dindigul service station and kept unattended.  After repeated requests by complainant to 2^nd opposite party and Madurai Service Station Manager, the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that there is a problem in the engine and the same could not be rectified and therefore the engine has to be replaced.  Due to frequent repairs, the complainant fed up with the vehicle even after changing the vehicles and every time when he was travelling in the said vehicle, he faced many problems in the public and lost reputation among the general public as he could not keep up the timings in attending the functions and meetings as Member of Legislative Assembly.  Therefore, he had requested the opposite parties many times to refund the amount paid to them towards purchase of the said vehicle.  But inspite of his repeated demands and requests the opposite parties have failed and neglected to refund the amount and they have not shown any inclination to talk to the complainant in this regard.  The complainant submits that whenever the complainants representative speaks to the Manager of opposite party Mr. Vikram he was shifting the responsibility to Regional Manager Mr.Thirumal who in turn shifting to Mr. Venugopal Reddy who is also one of the Managers in Chennai but nobody was prepared to give proper response and they treated the complainant representative in shabby manner and even threatened him not to refund the amount.  The complainant states that delivering the faulty vehicles and refusing to refund the amount is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused untold hardship and mental agony to the complainant besides huge loss as he is repaying the loan amount with interest without enjoying the fruit.  Hence the complainant issued a legal notice dated 19.05.2008 to all the opposite parties and the opposite partys received the said notice and sent evasive reply dated 25.06.2008.  Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st and 2^ndOPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The answering opposite parties is a renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars across the world and is widely acclaimed across the world for its class and quality.  It is submitted that vehicles and cars manufactured by the opposite parties pass through stringent quality tests and road trials before the actual production of the cars/vehicles and are marketed only after being approved by ARAI. The cars/vehicles are also thoroughly inspected before passing through factory works to their dealers for sale and finally to the end users. The present complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable in its present form.  The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of problems in the vehicle, deficiency in service and unfair trade service without any documentary evidence in support of the baseless allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant had not availed the mandatory recommended services as mentioned in the Warranty Policy.  It may be noted that for effective maintenance and smooth running of car/vehicle, every customer has to carry out the mandatory recommended services at regular intervals at the authorized service centres/workshops.  As per the service schedule, the complainant was supposed to bring the car/vehicle at the recommended intervals for carrying out the mandatory free services which the complainant failed and also failed to produce any records.  It is submitted that car/vehicle purchased by the complainant is of the highest quality and the complainant has taken delivery of the car/vehicle, after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance.  The car was delivered after carrying out the Pre Delivery Inspection of the vehicle.  Further whenever any car/vehicle reports to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, standard checks are carried out mandatorily & noting is done at backside of job card and it helps the concerned workshop to provide necessary consultancy/advice regarding the condition of the car /vehicle to the customer.  It is stated that the complainant after issuing written acknowledgment of receiving satisfactory services done to the vehicle, has instituted this frivolous complaint.  As a matter of fact, keeping in mind the important position that the complainant occupies, they have acted far beyond usual standards as would be evident from the facts.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite partys submitthat the complainant had filed this baseless complaint alleging problems in Car/vehicle without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the car/vehicle suffers from the problem as alleged, or to establishing any manufacturing defect in the car/vehicle in question.  The onus lies on the complainant to show the defects in goods supplied, deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice to the complainant.  In the present case, there has been no defect in the goods purchased by the complainant and/or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite partys.  The opposite partys submit that the complainant had raised issues which involves questions of facts as well as law and requires voluminous evidence and trials and can be appropriately done only by a Civil Court and hence Civil Court is the proper forum and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties submit that the averments contained in paras 1 to 4 are matters of record and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties denied the averments in para 5 and the complainant is put to strict proof of claim.  The opposite parties delivered the vehicle set out in invoice dated 23.10.2007 since the complainant wanted immediate delivery of the vehicle, which was organized.  The opposite parties deny that the different vehicle was delivered allegedly because of a problem with the first vehicle.  The opposite parties delivered another vehicle only because that was readily available, and the urgency expressed by the complainant for delivery of the vehicle.  The OPs deny the averments in para 6 and 7 that their product was having any problem or defect, however the complainant expressed his unhappiness with the vehicle.  After examining the vehicle, it was found that there was a possibility of damage due to incorrect use attributable to the driving by complainant.  Since the vehicle was a new vehicle and the complainant continued insisting upon a replacement of the vehicle, in order to put at rest any dissatisfaction of the complaint, the opposite parties agreed to replace the vehicle itself, which was done as a special case and is never resorted to by any vehicle manufacturer.  This act alone establishes the opposite parties desire to maintain high level of customer satisfaction.  Regarding the claim in para 8 is concerned that the engine belt and timing belt were damaged, which generally happens due to the rough usage and non-maintenance of the vehicle as per the manual.  Similarly, the damage in the “PULLY” would happen due to negligence on the part of the user and overloading of the vehicle beyond the permissible limits, hence such damage cannot be attributable to a manufacturing defect.  However, the opposite parties have promptly attended to the complainant’s call and rectified the defects by replacing the necessary parts under warranty without charging for the said parts.  Regarding the averment in para 9 and 10, the opposite parties strongly deny the same.  Though necessary advice was given to the complainant regarding the usage and maintenance as per the manual, there was apparently no adherence to the instructions given in the owner’s manual and due to that the vehicle evidently stalled on 04.05.2008.  It is pertinent to note that opposite parties have promptly attended to the complainant though it was a midnight as stated by the complainant itself.  Due to the non-adherence of the instructions in the manual by the complainant, it was observed from the fuel filter that the sudden stoppage of the vehicle could have happened because of accumulation of dirt and dust in the fuel filter and other related parts.  There was no defect in the engine or in any other major parts of the vehicle and a thorough check was done to rule out any defect.  There appeared to have been damage caused to the important parts due to improper usage of the vehicle.  It is significant to note that between December 2007 to April 2008 the vehicle had travelled about 14000 kms without a complaint and it was driven for an average of 100 kms per day.  If the engine or any part was indeed defective, it would not have been possible to use it extensively at such rate.  Considering the nature of the preliminary checks, it was decided by M/s. ARASPVPV with the concurrence of the complainants representative to take the vehicle to their equipped facility at Madurai.  After conducting thorough checks and considering that the vehicle was a relatively new vehicle and to maintain customer’s satisfaction and loyalty, the authorized dealer even changed the necessary parts and engine on warranty terms.  As a matter of fact, the complainant was extremely pleased with the responses and gave a congratulatory letter to the Authorised dealer stating he was pleased with their efforts and recommending their services.  The complainant’s claim of being dissatisfied as set out in the complaint is therefore evidently untrue.  Regarding the para 11 and 12 the opposite parties deny the allegations of the complainant. The opposite parties state that the vehicle was attended and repaired satisfactorily, and the spare parts replaced under warranty and hence the question of refund of purchase price does not arise at all.  The opposite parties deny the allegations in Para 13 of the complaint and the representative of opposite parties always spoken to the complainant’s representative courteously and have promptly attended to the grievance of the complainant.  Under the scope of the warranty terms, the opposite parties are to attend the vehicle and to repair the parts in the vehicle and to replace such parts under warranty, which according to them to be found to be defective, hence the OPs are not bound to replace the vehicle or refund the price when the vehicle is under warranty and also there is no inherent defect in the vehicle.  Regarding the averments in paras 14,15 and 16 are concerned, the opposite parties deny the claims as entirely baseless and without merit.    Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be pleased to dismiss with exemplary costs.

3.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The 3^rd opposite party at the outset denies all the allegations made in the complaint as false, baseless and incorrect except those allegations that are admitted.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the various allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant suppressed material facts and the compliant is liable to be dismissed.  The 3^rd opposite party vehemently denies the allegations in para 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint as false baseless.  It is true that the complainant booked a TATA SAFARI VX 4X2, Cycus Grey colour bearing chassis No.403093JSZ18850 and engine No2.2LDICORJSZ71649 and paid a sum of Rs.10,40,958/-.  When the vehicle is about to be delivered, in PDI found a problem and the same was also intimated to the complainant with good will and promised to deliver some other vehicle on 23.10.2007.  As per the promise, after all the checks, same colour, same model car bearing chassis No.403093KSLNI4406 and engine No.2.2 DICOR 06KSZ724398 was delivered to the complainant.  After two weeks from the date of purchase of vehicle, certain cracks developed in the chassis of the said vehicle, the complainant being VIP, since the vehicle delivered was not registered, as a very special case,took back the complainant’s vehicle and replaced it with another new vehicle bearing chassis No.403093KSZN14950 and engine No.2.2LDICOR06KSZ725887 on 28.11.2007 as any other car was free from all defects.  The 3^rd opposite party denies the paras 6,7 & 8 as false and incorrect.  The 3^rd opposite party submits that it is totally false to state that after the delivery of vehicle there is some strange noise exists and no communication was made.  On 15.04.2008, the 3^rd opposite party has been informed by the complainant that the vehicle got break down near Spencer Plaza and the vehicle was attended by the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant had taken back the vehicle to his entire satisfaction.  The 3^rd opposite party denies the allegations in paras 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the complaint as false and baseless.  It is not a faulty vehicle, and the fact is that it is one of the fast moving and successful model in the country.  On examination of service, it is found that the car is in good condition and there are no chances of problem on normal and proper driving.  The 3^rd opposite party denies the paras 13, 14 & 15 as false and incorrect.  While denying all the allegations, the 3^rd opposite party confirms that when the complainant brought to their notice about the complaint on the vehicle while reported to Madurai dealership, they took special interest to speak to manufacturer’s representative and communicated the status of the complainant.  The complainant had taken back the vehicle towards his entire satisfaction and gave an appreciation letter for the same.  The complainant cannot take advantage of own ignorance by not adhering of the warranty instruction on the manual and allege the 3^rd opposite party not able to rectify the alleged defects that have pointed to them.  The defects might have occurred only due to the carelessness, rash and negligence of the complainant.  It was only due to the complainant’s own negligence and resulting from improper usage that certain problems developed in the vehicle.  The same have been rectified by the opposite parties and with complainant’s full satisfaction the vehicle was taken back by the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party on receipt of legal notice dated 19.05.2008 sent a reply to complainant’s counsel on 25.06.2008.  The 3^rd opposite party has taken pains to fulfil their responsibilities and to the extent of best service and there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  It is submitted that when the vehicle was delivered in good working condition it does not warrant a replacement.  The 3^rd opposite party deny that the complainant has been put to mental agony, physical hardship and loss on account of any alleged deficient act on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party submits that there has been no deficiency in service or negligence on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade

     practice on the part opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant have filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A12 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The opposite parties have filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B4 are marked. The Report from expert is marked as Ex.C1.

5. POINT NO :1 :-

          The undisputed fact of the complaint is that complainant had booked a vehicle TATA SAFARI VX 4X2 Model, Cycus Grey Colour with the third opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.10,40,958/-.  The tax invoice issued by the 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ex. A3. 

6. The complainant alleged that the 3^rd opposite party had informed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle TATA SAFARI VX 4X2 Model, Cycus Grey Colour with chassis No.403093JSZ18850 and Engine No.2.2LDICOR06JSZ719649 from their show room and on 22.10.2007 when the complainant visited the 3^rd opposite party show room, he was shocked and surprised to found that the vehicle could not be delivered as there was a steering problem in the said vehicle. In the sales certificate issued by the 3^rd opposite party which is marked as Ex.A1, it was written as Chassis No.403093JSZ18850 and Engine No.2.2LDICOR06JSZ719649.  At the instance of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to deliver some other vehicle of same model instead of the vehicle originally agreed to deliver to the complainant.  From the Ex.A2, vehicle delivery acknowledgement note, it is observed that on 23.10.2007 a new vehicle of same model with Chassis No. 403093KSLN14406 and Engine No.2.2L DICOR06KSZ724398 was delivered by 3^rd opposite party.  A debit note issued by 3^rd opposite party for this vehicle is marked as Ex. A4. 

7. On the other hand, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party denies that the different vehicle was delivered because of a problem with the first vehicle.  1^st and 2^nd opposite party contended that another vehicle was delivered due to the urgency expressed by the complainant and that vehicle was readily available.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party have not produced any proof for their version.  Whereas the 3^rd opposite party admitted that there was a problem found during the PDI and same was intimated to the complainant and on 23.10.2007 another vehicle of same model with chassis no. and engine no as stated supra was delivered to complainant. 

8. The complainant contends that within a week from the date of delivery of vehicle, while he was proceeding from Madurai to Tirunelveli all of a sudden, a strange noise coming out of vehicle and he took to the nearest authorized service station of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party namely M/s. Kumaran Automobiles at Tirunelveli and they found that there was a crack in the chassis of the said vehicle.  Neither complainant nor opposite parties filed any proof/job card for the above problem.  After repeated follow up and requests by the complainant to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they agreed to replace the chassis broken vehicle with another vehicle of same model with Chassis No. No.403093KSZN14950 and engine No.2.2LDICOR06KSZ725887 on 28.11.2007. 

9. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on their side denies that their product having any problem or defect, however, the complainant expressed his unhappiness with the vehicle.  After examining the vehicle, it was found that there was a possibility of damage in the vehicle due to incorrect use attributable to the driving by the complainant.  Since the complainant continuously insisting for replacement of vehicle and in order to put rest to the dissatisfaction of complainant, the opposite parties agreed to replace the vehicle as a special case.  Whereas the 3^rd opposite party claims that after two weeks from the date of purchase certain cracks developed in the chassis of the said vehicle, the complainant being VIP, further the vehicle delivered was not registered, and hence  as a special case another new vehicle of same model having chassis No. No.403093KSZN14950 and engine No.2.2LDICOR06KSZ725887 was replaced on 28.11.2007.  No records were filed in this regard by complainant as well as opposite parties.  

10. The complainant contends that on 15.04.2008 when the complainant was travelling in Chennai at Anna Salai, the replaced vehicle got break down in front of the Spencer Plaza signal, immediately he informed the 3^rd opposite party, who in turn sent their mechanics and they towed the vehicle to service station at Ambattur.  The 3^rd opposite party informed the complainant that the engine belt and timing belt in the vehicle were cut, and the “PULLY” had broken.  After rectifying the defects and changed the pully, the vehicle was delivered on 18.04.2008. 

11. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the engine belt and timing belt were damaged, which generally happens due to the rough usage and non-maintenance of the vehicle as per the manual.  Similarly, the damage in the “PULLY” would happen due to negligence on part of the user and overloading of the vehicle beyond the permissible limits and not due to a manufacturing defect.   However, the opposite parties have promptly attended the problems and rectified the defects by replacing the necessary parts under warranty without charging for the said parts.  The complainant was given necessary advice about the maintenance and usage of vehicle to avoid such problems in future.  The 3^rd opposite party claims that on receipt of information from complainant, the vehicle was attended by the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant had taken back the vehicle to his entire satisfaction.  From the Ex. A5, A6 and B1, the tax invoices, it is observed that 3^rd free service was done besides changing timing belts, EDPM belts, oils and some other parts and the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 18.04.2008 but no job card was filed either by complainant or 3^rd opposite party.  According to the Ex. B1, the vehicle had completed 14784 kms. as on 18.04.2008. 

12. The complainant averred that on 04.05.2008 after attending assembly session, went to Munnar from Chennai to attend Government functions and while returning to Chennai at about 10.00 p.m. at Dindigul the vehicle was stranded in the middle of road and could not be restarted again.  The complainant left the vehicle and reached Chennai by alternative mode and on 05.05.2008 the complainant through his assistant informed the local authorized service centre of opposite parties at Dindigul namely M/s. AR.A.S.P.V.P.V. to attend the fault.  The vehicle was towed by the said service station person but failed and neglected to inform the defects in the said vehicle.  Subsequently the complainant came to know that the vehicle was towed away to Madurai from Dindigul service station and kept unattended.  After repeated requests by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party and Madurai Service Station Manager, the 2^nd opposite party informed that there is a problem in the engine and the same could not be rectified and therefore the engine has to be replaced to the said vehicle.  

13. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties on the other hand claimed that though necessary advice was given to complainant regarding usage and maintenance as per the manual, the complainant has not adhered to the instructions given and due to that the vehicle evidently stalled on 04.05.2008.  The opposite parties promptly attended to the complainant even at midnight as admitted by the complainant.  The complainant was advised to use recommended fuel and not to drive in dusty and different terrain without regular servicing.  It was observed from the fuel filter that the sudden stoppage of the vehicle could have happened because of accumulation of dirt and dust in the fuel filter and other related parts.  There was no defect in the engine or in any other major parts and a thorough check was done to rule out any defect.  It appears damage could have caused to important parts due to improper usage of vehicle. From Dec. 2007 to April 2008 the vehicle travelled about 14000 kms without a complaint and it was driven for an average of 100 kms per day and hence there is no possibility of defect in engine or any part.  Considering the nature of preliminary checks, it was decided by M/s. ARASPVPV with the concurrence of the complainant’s representative to take the vehicle to their better equipped facility in Madurai.  After conducting thorough checks and considering that the vehicle was relatively new vehicle and to maintain customer’s satisfaction and loyalty, the authorized dealer has changed necessary parts and engine on warranty terms.  The complainant was extremely pleased with the response and gave a congratulatory letter to the authorized dealer which is marked as Ex. B2.  From the Ex. A7, the job card of M/s. ARASPVPV, Dindigul dated 05.05.2008 reveals that the vehicle has travelled 16695 kms and the complaint is recorded as ‘Starting Problem’.  Neither complainant nor 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed any job card of M/s. ARASPVPV, Madurai Service Station.  No proof of document was filed regarding change of engine on either side.  The 3^rd opposite party claims that when the complainant brought to their notice about the complaint on the vehicle while reported at Madurai dealership, 3^rd opposite party took special interest to speak to manufacturer’s representative and communicated the status of the complainant and the complainant took delivery of vehicle to his satisfaction and gave a congratulatory letter for the same as seen in Ex. B2.It appears from Ex. B3, the complainant left the vehicle to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties authorized service station at Tirunelveli on 31.08.2009 for some repairs and as per that the vehicle had travelled for 16724 kms.

14. The complainant alleged that he was fed up with the problems cropped up with the said vehicles one after another from day one and hence he could not rely upon the vehicle of the opposite parties.  The complainant faced many problems with the vehicle and yield great disappointment, hardship, mental agony beside huge loss.  The complainant feels that vehicle of the opposite parties is a threat to his life and safety and whenever he travelled to a long distance, he is facing problems and if he travels in this kind of faulty vehicle, it may lead to a major accident.  Therefore, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the amount paid.  But inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties have failed and neglected the refund.  When the complainant representative speaks to Manager of opposite parties Mr. Vikram, he shifted his responsibility to Mr. Thirumal and who in turn shifted to Mr. Venugopal Reddy but finally there was no response rather they started threatening the complainant’s representative.  The complainant sent a legal notice on 19.05.2008 to all opposite parties for refund which are marked as Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 and the evasive replies sent by opposite parties are marked as Ex. A10, A11 and A12.

15. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties averred that the vehicle was attended and repaired satisfactorily, and spare parts were replaced under warranty and hence the question of refund of the purchase price does not arise at all.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties denies the allegations of complainant that the representative of opposite parties threatened the representative of complainant.  As per Ex.B4, Owner’s Manual & Service Book, “the warranty shall be for 24 months or 75000 kms, whichever is earlier from the date of sale of the vehicle.  The obligation under this warranty shall be limited to repairing or replacing, free of charge, such parts of vehicle which, in our opinion, are defective, on the vehicle being brought to us or to our dealers within the warranty period”.  Hence the opposite parties are not bound to replace or refund the price of the vehicle under warranty.  The 3^rd opposite party on his part averred that the complainant has not adhered to the warranty instruction on the manual and cannot blame that the alleged defects were not able to rectified by 3^rd opposite party.  The defects might have occurred only due to the carelessness, rash and negligent manner in using the vehicle by the complainant and improper servicing of the vehicle outside the authorised mechanic shops.  The 3^rd opposite party promptly replied the notice sent by complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and they have serviced and delivered the vehicle in good working condition and hence it does not warrant a replacement.

          16. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in their averment claimed that the complaint was filed alleging problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion / documentary proof in the form of evidence to prove that the vehicle suffers from the problems as alleged, or to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.   The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties relied upon the case of M/s.  EID Parry (India) Ltd., vs Baby Benjamin Thushara I (1992 1 (CPJ)279 and LAWS(NCD) 2001-11-75 NCDRC dated 19.11.2001 and LAWS(NCD) 2004-3-309 NCDRC  dated: 05.03.2004 and for the claims stated supra.

          17. The complainant had filed a CMP 11/2012 praying this Hon’ble Commission to refer the impugned vehicle for expert opinion to Anna University, Automobile Engineering Department, MIT Campus, Chrompet, Chennai-44 to inspect, notify the defects and file a report based on the observations. The complainant in the CMP alleged that after receipt of vehicle from the service station at Dindigul, same defect arose again and again and left with no other option, again handed over the vehicle to the service stations at the opposite party at Madurai and Nagercoil.  The vehicle was handed over to Nagercoil service station on 24.01.2011 and in the month of Feb. 2011, the officials of service station insisted to take delivery, otherwise Rs.50/- will be charges per day as parking fee.   Hence the complainant took back the vehicle on 19.02.2011 to his house at Tirunelveli and not used the vehicle till date.

          18. The Report from the Anna University, Automobile Engineering Department, MIT Campus, Chrompet, Chennai-44 is marked as Ex. C1, wherein, it is stated that “The vehicle was produced on 10.03.2014 and the vehicle was verified with the chassis no. & engine no., both are not match with the details given by the honourable forum.  Apart from that, the vehicle is not having any registration no. and also the vehicle has run more than 50,000 kms.  Further though the vehicle was purchased in the year 2007 it does not have registration number and hence the vehicle has not taken for inspection”.

          19. It is found from Ex.C1 report that the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle which was produced for inspection by the expert does not matched with the details given in the complaint further the vehicle though has run more than 50000kms has not been registered till the date of inspection on 10.03.2014 though the vehicle was purchased in the year 2007. After carefully gone through the averments of complainants and opposite parties and on perusal of documents, it is found that the vehicle was replaced first time based on report of some problem during PDI which was admitted by opposite party 3.  1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have admitted the replacement of vehicle but denied the reasons for change.  Second time again the vehicle was replaced for crack in chassis which was admitted by 3^rd opposite party.  Again 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties denied the reasons for replacement but admitted the replacement of vehicle.  According to Ex.B4, Owner’s Manual & Service Book, the customers can avail five free services at regular intervals as given in the manual but from the documents furnished on both sides, it appears that the complainant had availed only 3^rd free service, that too during the problem in the vehicle as per Ex.A6, and rest of the services were not availed by him and left the vehicle at service station Hence there is no documentary proof to show that the engine was changed.  From the date of purchase of vehicle, the authorized service centres of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and 3^rd opposite party on their part attended to complainant and provided timely services and the complainant himself complemented their services as seen Ex. B2.  The complainant failed to establish his contention of manufacturing defect, because the vehicle had good run upto 16724 kms from 28.11.2007 to 31.08.2009 as per Ex. B3.  Though the complainant had stated that he had not use the vehicle from 19.02.2011 to till date but the Ex. C1, the report of Anna University, Automobile Engineering Department, MIT Campus, Chrompet, Chennai-44 clearly states that the vehicle had run upto 50000 kms as on 10.03.2014, which clearly indicates that the vehicle is used by the complainant till date, and it is in good running condition.  As per the exhibits marked on both sides, it is found that the vehicle was not registered till date and which is against the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, The complainant was very silent in his averments with respect to registration of vehicle and the reasons for not registering the vehicle for such a long time is not disclosed by complainant.

The learned counsels for opposite parties relied upon the following judgements on their side :

1. National Commission, Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr, (2010) CPJ 235 (NC)
2. State Commission, Tamilnadu, R. Anand Vs. Marikars Motor Ltd., & Anr IV (2009) CPJ 300
3. National Commission, Maruti Udyog Ltd., and another Vs P. Rathinadurai (2004) CPJ 563
4. National Commission, Chandesh Kumar Vs Chairman TELCO Ltd., and others, (2006) CPR 402 (NC)
5. National Commission, R. Bhaskar Vs D.N. Udani and others, (2006) III CPR 336 (NC)
6. National Commission, Hassan Ali Khan Vs Seshagiri Rao and another III (2002) CPJ 137

Based on the above decisions, opposite party 1 to 3 contended that manufacturing defect has to be proved by expert evidence but in the present case it is found from Ex.C1 that the vehicle produced was not for inspection by the expert since the engine number and chassis number does not match with the details given in the complaint and hence this report has no evidenciary value and cannot construed as expert report and hence this commission is of considered view, that the vehicle is not having manufacturing defect since it is continuously running till date and only wear and tear parts were replaced at the time of rectifying problems in the vehicle and the complainant failed to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is also concluded that there is no deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties since the opposite parties attended the complaints as and when it was brought to their knowledge which was acknowledged and appreciated by the complainant itself.  Hence the complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.   Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

20. POINT NO :2 :-

Based on findings given to Point no.1 there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and also, there is no deficiency of service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for refund of amount paid for the vehicle and for any compensation as claimed in the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

               In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No cost. 

Dictated by the Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 08^th  day of  November 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	22.10.2007	Sale certificate.
Ex.A2	23.10.2007	Vehicle delivery acknowledgement.
Ex.A3	22.10.2007	Tax invoice.
Ex.A4	23.10.2007	Debit note.
Ex.A5	18.04.2007	Service bill.
Ex.A6	18.04.2007	Service bill.
Ex.A7	05.05.2008	Job card issued by the service centre.
Ex.A8	19.05.2008	Legal notice.
Ex.A9		Acknowledgement card.
Ex.A10	27.05.2008	Reply from the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A11	25.06.2008	Reply notice from 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A12	03.07.2008	Reply from 1st opposite party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	18.04.2008	Tax invoice.
Ex.B2		Satisfactory letter.
Ex.B3	31.08.2009	Job card of ARASPVPV.
Ex.B4		Tata Safari(2.2 VTT Dicor) owner’s Manual & Service Book.

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  COURT SIDE.

Ex.C1	04.02.2020	Expert opinion.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                MEMBER II                                 PRESIDENT