Orissa

Cuttak

CC/183/2014

Arun P Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman,Tata Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R N Biswal

19 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C. no.183/2014

 

Arun P Nayak

L-2 d/1,Kalyan Nagar,

Budharaja,Sambalpur,

Odisha-768004.                                                                            … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1. The Chairman,

TATA Motors Ltd.,Bombay House,

24,Homi Modi Street Fort,Mumbai.

 

 

2.  Regional Manager,

TATA Motors Ltd.,East Zone,

APG House,5^th Floor,Block-C,

Park Street,Kolkata-7000169West Bengal).

 

3.  The   Branch Manager,

TATA Motors Ltd., PO:Delta Colony,Bhubaneswar.

 

4. The Service Manager,

ACE Auto cars,

       NH5,Bhanpur,Cuttack,

Odisha-753011

 

5. The Branch cum Service Manager,

Bharat Motors, NH-5,Pahala,

Cuttack-Bhubaneswar Road,

Odisha

 

6. The Service Manager,

Jaika Motors, P.B.No.1, Commercial Raod-1,

Civil Lines,Nagpur,Maharashtra.

 

7. The Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance,Lonk Raod,Cuttack,

Odisha

 

8. The Branch cum Service Manager,

Mas Samaleslwari Automobiles,

                         NH-5,Ainthapalli,

Infront of Income Tax Office,

                          Sambalpur,Odisha.                                         …Opp.Parties

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     12.12.2014

Date of Order:    19.01.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. R.N.Biswal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1,2 & 3 :                 Mr. S.Routray,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.4,5,6,7 & 8:                     None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President              

In this case order was already passed on 19.8.2017 thereby dismissing the case of the complainant by this Commission.  Being aggrieved, the complainant had preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission and by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission the case was remitted back to this Commission thereby allowing both the parties to adduce further evidence and this Commission was directed  to pass a speaking order within 60 days of the receipt of the order.Parties were thus directed to appear before this Commission on 21.11.22.  On 18.11.2022, the complainant had filed the certified copy of the order of the Hon’bleState C.D,R.Commission,Cuttack but subsequently it was noticed that though the complainant was turning up to the court on each date of posting, the O.Ps were not filing any steps.  However, ultimately when no steps were filed inspite of several adjournments and since because this is a targeted case wherein the Hon’ble State C.D,R.Commission,Cuttack has directed this Commission to dispose of the matter within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order, without further delay this Commission has to pass order in this case.  Accordingly, the case was posted today for orders.

2.         Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had purchased a Tata INDIGO Manza ABS car on dated 2.3.10 from Lexus Motors,Kolkata.  The said vehicle of the complainant was insured with Oriental Insurance Company.  The Regd. No. of the said vehicle was OR-15P-3443.  One day while going to Puri, the complainant found that there was some defect in pick-up of the said vehicle for which he had shown his vehicle to the O.P no.5 who is the authorised dealer.  He was asked to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards replacement/repair of the defective parts and since because there was extended warranty for his vehicle, the complainant apprised the same to the O.P no.5 but O.P no.5 had explained the complainant that as pr the manufacturing policy, repair and replacement of the defective parts will be taken up but the costs are to be borne by the owner.  The complainant thereby could not avail the repair work though he had extended warranty of his vehicle.  The complainant had written about the same to the O.Ps.  The complainant thereafter had taken his vehicle to O.P no.4 on 3.4.13 but the date in the job card was wrongly reflected as 4.5.13.  The O.P no.4 also demanded money in order to change the defective parts of the vehicle of the complainant.  On 29.7.13 the complainant wrote a letter to the service head of TATA Motors since because, even if the replacement/repair of the Turbo of his vehicle by O.P no.4, the problems still persisted.  There was a reduction in the mileage and so also in the pick-up of the said vehicle.  The complainant had taken his vehicle to Nagpur Workshop/Jaika Motors(O.P no.6) and had also to Ria Motors but the problems still persisted in his vehicle for which the complainant had demanded a new vehicle from the O.Ps alongwith a compensation of Rs,6,50,000/- from them towards his mental agony and litigation expenses or in the alternative the complainant wants refund of his money together with interest thereon @ 21% compounded by annually till the total amount is quantified.

The complainant together with his complain petition has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

3.         Out of the eight O.Ps as arrayed in this case only O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have contested this case and have earlier filed their written version jointly.  From the written version of the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, it is noticed that they have averred therein that the extended warranty does not include complete replacement, rather, the vehicle should run as per the instruction manual and must be serviced regularly at correct time.  Any breach of the recommendations as prescribed in the said owner’s manual would render the policy voidable.  They have alleged that the vehicle of the complainant though under extended warranty was never used properly rather it was due to the faulty uses of the said vehicle such defect was noticed and the complainant had to bear the expenses for those spare parts in order to get his vehicle repaired/rectfied.  The O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have relied upon the decision of the Honble National Commission in the case of Dr. Narayan Sumer Advisor(Engineering), Maruti Udyog Ltd., Dr. A.S.Narayana Rao and Anr.[I(2010)] wherein he urged for the necessity of expert evidence in order to prove manufacturing defect of the vehicle, in the cases of Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. P.K.Chakkappore (2005) CPJ 72 (NC) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. Pabhulal Marru and Ors, (2004) CPJ 38 (NC)  wherein it is held hat Consumer Fora cannot come to a finding that the vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect unless the same has been inspected thoroughly by an expert.  In the case of EID Parry V Baby Benjamin (1992) CPJ 279 wherein it was held by the Honble National Commission that when allegation is made regarding defect in the machine, it is mandatory to send the same for inspection at an appropriate laboratory.  Accordingly, it is the contention of the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 that the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.Ps no.1,2& 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and the same when perused, it is only the reiteration of the contents of the complaint petition and nothing else.

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

As it appears from the averments of the complaint petition that there was some defects in the pick-up and mileage of the vehicle of the complainant which was pointed out by the complainant to the O.Ps and he had taken his vehicle to various authorised service centres of the O.Ps for its rectification.  The O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 have urged about the manufacturing defect and have filed catena of decisions to support their stand in that aspect.  But quite interestingly, the complainant had not whispered about any manufacturing defect in his vehicle rather according to him, his vehicle was to be repaired which was not done and the defects still persisted though he had taken his vehicle to various service centres of the O.Ps and had extended warranty for his vehicle.  The O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 admit about the extended warranty of the complainant still to be effective when the defects were noticed in the vehicle of the complainant.  They have not stated that if the extended warranty includes replacement and repair of the defective parts of the vehicle of the complainant.  They have also not urged that if the complainant had denied to bear the repairing/replacement costs. Thus, when the defects even though attended by authorized service centres of the O.Ps still persisted and the complainant had to write to the O.Ps seeking rectification of his vehicle and the O.Ps by not doing so are definitely found to be deficient in their service towards the complainant and thus the are also found to be practising unfair trade.  Hence, this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                    ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.Ps no.4,5,6,7 & 8 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to repair the defective vehicle of the complainant free of cost within a month from the date of getting this order and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation with litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.       

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                            Member