Karnataka

Kolar

CC/64/2014

V.Prakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Tata Motors Private Ltd.,Concorde India Ltd., & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Suman.K

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 30/12/2014

Date of Order: 02/11/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 02^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 64 OF 2014

Sri. V. Prakash,

S/o. Venkataramanna,

Aged About 32 Years,

Occ: Assistant, Major,

Works Division, KPTCL at Kolar,

R/at: 4^th Main, 6^th Cross,

Behind AMV School,

Gandhi Nagar, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.R. Somashekhar, Advocate)       ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Tata Motors Private Limited,

Concorde India Limited,

An ISO 9001 2008 Company,

Sy. No.113/1B, P.C. Halli,

Opposite R.V. International

School, Bypass Road,

Kolar-563 101.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B. Kumar, Advocate)      

 

2) The Regional Manager,

Regional Office Concorde

Motor India Limited,

3^rd Floor, Nanavathi Mahalaya,

18^th, Homi Mody Street,

Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai-400 001.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B. Kumar, Advocate)      

 

3) The Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Limited,

No.51, “LEE PARC RICHMONDE”,

1^st Floor, Richmond Road,

Bangalore-560 025. (ABOVE CITI BANK ATM)

(Since placed ex-parte)      

4) The Regional Manager,

The Tata Motors,

Registered Office,

At: Bombay House,

24, Homi Mody Street,

Fort, Mumbai-400 001.

Ph: +92-22-66658282.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. K.V. Adarsha, Advocate)          …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the Act”) has sought relief of issuance of directions to the OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 to return the Nano Car with good condition or to handover a new car with good condition to him, and also for issuance of directions against the OP-3 to return the extra interest and other amount received from him, as well, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for being recovered from Op Nos.1 to 4, for the loss of his health, time, money and peace of mind.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, on 12.09.2011 he purchased Tata Nano Car by relaying on advertisement published by 4^th OP who had introduced low budget Nano Car for Rs.1,00,000/- only.  And that he had borrowed hand loan from OP-3 and had given blank cheques to OP-3.  And that taking advantage of the financial problem of him, OP-3 had collected higher rate of interests through monthly installments.

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, OP-2 is the higher authority of the OP-1.  And that hence they are liable.  Further it is contended that, OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 had assured him that, the said vehicle was bound to give mileage of 25 kilometers per liter.  And that after the purchase the mileage given was only 15 kilometers per liter of petrol.  And that as there were problems with regard to battery, wheel alignment and other problems he had left the vehicle with the 1^st OP on 17.02.2012 (Earlier this date was pleaded as 24.06.2012, whereas, the same came to be amended as on 17.02.2012 vide order dated: 16.10.2015).

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, in spite of approaching up to 15 times the OP-1 did not return the vehicle.  And that he had paid more than Rs.60,000/- by way of monthly installments and had paid Rs.30,000/- as down payment and hand spent huge sum of Rs.25,800/- towards repair as per the directions of the OP-1 in the showroom.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand to seek the above set out reliefs.

 

(c)    The complainant with list dated: 30.12.2014 has submitted the following 13 documents:-

(i) Original copy of Vehicle workshop job card problem (vehicle) slip dated: 17.02.2012.

(ii) Original copy of Vehicle Repair cash paid receipt 26.08.2011.

(iii) Original copy of Vehicle Repair cash paid receipt dated: 03.09.2011.

(iv) Original copy of Vehicle repair cash paid receipt dated: 08.09.2011.

(v) Original copy of Vehicle repair cash paid receipt dated: 12.09.2011.

(vi) Original copy of Tax invoice repair request dated: 02.11.2012.

(vii) Original copy of Tax invoice repair request dated: 16.11.2011.

(viii) Copies of Request notices by complainant 2 in numbers.

(ix) Original copies of Installment paid vouchers/receipts 13 in numbers.

(x) Original copies of RPAD postal receipts 04 in numbers

(xi) Original copies of RPAD postal acknowledgements 02 in numbers.

(xii) Xerox copies of Office copies of legal notices 04 in numbers.

(xiii) Original copy of Reply notice.

03.   On issuance of notice, OP Nos.1, 2 & 4 have put in their appearance through their said learned counsel.  The records do reveal that, the then learned Predecessor passed order on 07.02.2015 placing OP-3 as exparte.  Further it is worth to note that, as per the proceedings noticed in the order sheet dated: 15.04.2015 and 20.07.2015 the OP-4 could not submit written version nor led any evidence.

 

04.   OP Nos.1 and 2 have put their written version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is contended that, there could be no alleged deficiency in service nor the dispute is consumer dispute.  It is contended that, on purchasing of the said vehicle the complainant ought to have entrusted the said vehicle for first service at running of 1,000 kilometers to 1500 kilometers or within a month whichever is earlier.  And that for the 2^nd service the said vehicle ought to have been sent on running of the said vehicle from 5000 to 5500 kilometers or six months whichever is earlier.  And that for 3^rd service the said vehicle ought to have been sent on running of the said vehicle from 10000 kilometers to 10500 kilometers or 12 months whichever is earlier.

 

(b)    It is also contended that 1^st and 2^nd services were complied on running of the said vehicle for 1,054 kilometers and then for 8,185 kilometers respectively.  And that with regard to the free service rendered there could be no complaint.  Further it is contended that, the said vehicle was not sent for 3^rd service.

 

(c)    Further it is specifically contended that, as per the principles enunciated in (JT 2006 (4) SC 113) the manufacturer cannot be ordered to replace the vehicle, for, the defects if found could be rectified.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, as per the principles enunciated in (1996) 4 SCC 704 the parties are bound by its terms and conditions of the contract.  And that under the circumstances the buyer shall not have any other rights except the rights mentioned above.

 

(e)    Further it is contended that, as the complainant has raised the issues which involve questions of facts as well as law, necessarily the same require recording of evidence by conducting trial and hence it would be appropriate for being tried by a Civil Court.

 

(f)     Further it is contended that apart from the said free services for 1^st and 2^nd time, on 16.11.2011 the vehicle was checked.  And that the said vehicle was again checked on 30.03.2012 for up-gradation.  And that again the said vehicle was checked on 23.04.2012 and there could be a re-delivery on 26.04.2012.  And that these transactions are well documented vide Annexures - A to G.

 

(g)    Further it is contended that, on 02.11.2012 the said vehicle was sent for service and the complainant was satisfied with the services and that the copy of the tax invoice is dated: 03.11.2012.  And that the gate pass dated: 10.11.2012 came to be issued and these documents are vide Annexures-H and I.  So contending, dismissal of the complaint with costs has been sought.   

 

05.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence.

 

06.   On behalf of the OP Nos.1 & 2 Sri. R. Shivaji, working as Head – Administration, Facilities & I.T of OP Nos.1 & 2 has put in his affidavit evidence.  Along with the affidavit evidence copies of tax invoice, job card dated: 16.11.2011, Material requisition, the job card dated: 23.04.2012, have been submitted.

 

07.   The complainant has submitted written arguments on 06.08.2015.  And on this day with Memo the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted catalogues downloaded through internet and manual published by OP-4.  On 16.10.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted additional written arguments.  On this day the learned counsel appearing for the complainant with Memo has submitted confirmation letter to disclose that mileage given was of 15 kilometers only.  And another such confirmation letter dated: 01.02.2012 to disclose that mileage given was of 16 kilometers.

 

08.   On 13.05.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the OP Nos.1 and 2 has submitted written arguments.  And along with the written arguments the learned counsel appearing for the OP Nos.1 & 2 has submitted copy of the judgment reported in 2006-(CT4)-GJX-0338-SC Equivalent citation to 2006-(002)-CPJ-0003-SC and AIR 1996 SC 2508.

 

09.   On 19.10.2015 the learned counsel appearing for OP Nos.1 & 2 with Memo has submitted following self-attested 06 documents:-

(i)       Job Card dated: 02.11.2012

(ii)      Tax Invoice dated: 02.11.2012

(iii)    Gate Pass dated: 10.11.2012

(iv)     Job Card dated: 23.04.2012

(v)      Job Card dated: 23.04.2012

(vi)     Tax Invoice dated: 26.04.2012.

 

10.   Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and OP Nos.1 & 2 only.

 

11.   Therefore the only point that does arise for our consideration in this case is:-

“Whether issues involved in this case are deeply complicated warranting a detailed trial by the competent Civil Court?

 

12.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated point is in the Affirmative for the following:-

 

REASONS

13.   It is definite case of the complainant that, he had issued blank cheques to OP-3 who took advantage of the financial problem of him (the complainant).   And that this OP-3 had collected high rate of interest through monthly installments from him (reliance placed on end portion of Pra-1 of the complaint).  Further the relief sought as against this OP-3 is to direct the OP-3 to return the extra interest and other amount received from him (the complainant).  When so, in the very interest of the complainant he is bound to lead evidence satisfactorily as to why and under what circumstances he was constrained to issue such blank cheques to OP-3.  And in this context he is bound to lead evidence with regard to quantum of such blank cheques so given to OP-3.  Besides he should lead evidence with regard to, what was the quantum of extra interest he had paid as against agreed one and also about payment of other amount to OP-3, for, he has sought for repayment of the same.  This is possible by leading meticulous evidence.  Whereas, the trial before this forum is summary one and we have no jurisdiction to record such evidence in detail so as to proceed to decide the matter on merits.  We are aware that OP-3 has been placed exparte.  Albeit we cannot overlook the complications involved in the case to come to right and just conclusion. 

 

14.   As per the definite plea of the complainant he had entrusted the said vehicle with the OP-1 lastly on 17.02.2012 (reliance placed on para-3 of the complaint).  As against the said plea OP Nos.1 & 2 to maintain that the vehicle was entrusted even on 02.11.2012 for which tax invoice was issued on 03.11.2012 and the gate-pass, came to be issued on 10.11.2012 which are evidenced vide Annexures – H & I (reliance placed on para-3 of the written version).  For the reasons noted above even after the submission of the written arguments but before conclusion of the oral arguments the learned counsel for OP Nos.1 & 2 did submit the documents covering this period, as well, 23.04.2012 and 26.04.2012.

 

15.   Here is the complainant who to contended that the last entrustment of the vehicle, was on 17.02.2012 whereas according to the OP Nos.1 & 2 it could be on 23.04.2012 and then on 02.11.2012 and on such entrustment of the vehicle it was returned to the complainant on 26.04.2012 and then again on 10.11.2012 respectively.  The complainant disputes this.  Therefore in the very interest of the complainant a detailed probe in to the matter is necessary so as to come to the definite conclusion as to whether the last entrustment was on 17.02.2012 or such entrustments were continued on 23.04.2012 and then on 02.11.2012 and the said vehicle was re-entrusted to the complainant as contended by the OPs on 26.03.2012 and then on 10.11.2012.  When such are the huge and complicated issues involved in the case on hand, we cannot decide this case on hand as we are bound to conduct only summary enquiry and hence summary trial.  So we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons, this complaint stands dismissed with no costs and as a necessary consequence we direct the complainant to approach the competent Civil Court for effective redressal.

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 02^nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                  PRESIDENT