Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/30/2015

Kantipuly Chiranjeevi, aged 60 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Varalakshmi Auto Mobiles Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 20.07.2015

Order Date:21.03.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

MONDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.30/2015

 

Between

 

Mr.Kantipuly Chiranjeevi,

Aged 60 years,

Thurakamitta,

Annu (BPO),

Karvetinagaram (M&P),

Chittoor District – 517 582.                                                           … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Manager,

            Varalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

13-122/2, Opposite Vartha,

Renigunta,

Tirupati – 517 507.

 

2.         The Manager,

Area Office,

TATA Motors Limited,

D.No.59-14-5 BSR Plaza, 2^nd Floor,

Opp. Maris Stella College,

Near Benz Circle,

Vijayawada – 520 008.                                                       …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 01.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.Kantipuly Chiranjeevi, party-in-person for the complainant, and Sri.P.Venugopal Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, 2) to refund the cost of the vehicle  Rs.3,94,909/- and to take their vehicle back, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony, strain and suffering and for the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and 4) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs of the litigation.    

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant purchased a vehicle vide “IRISH CREAM – TATA ACE FACE LIFT HT-275 1D1” under product code No.55233020ACNR, from opposite party No.1 on 30.04.2015 for Rs.3,94,909/-, which includes taxes of Rs.50,010/-. Within 10 days after purchase, its tyre was blasted (bursted). Thus the complainant could not use the vehicle for the purpose he intended, as a result of which he sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. In addition to it, engine oil consumption is very high.

            3.  That the complainant returned the blasted tyre to opposite party No.1 on 21.05.2015, requested to replace the tyre and fix the problem of high consumption of engine oil, for which opposite party refused to replace the tyre and fix the engine oil consumption problem. There is inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Complainant, therefore, is ready to return the vehicle. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties have to take back the vehicle and complainant is entitled to the cost of the vehicle. He got issued legal notice to opposite parties by registered post on 02.06.2015. Opposite parties neither attended the problem nor refunded the cost of the vehicle. Hence the complaint.    

            4.  Opposite party No.1, remained exparte.

            5.  Opposite party No.2 filed its written version contending that the cars and vehicles manufactured at the plant of the opposite party are thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers. That opposite party No.2, got excellent dealerships / authorized service centers like opposite party No.1 and having excellent workshops setup for after sales servicing of the commercial vehicles by qualified and experienced personnel. That opposite party No.2 got 145 authorized dealers and 780 Tata authorized service centers and running / providing all sorts of services including repairs and spare-parts.   

            6.  Opposite party No.2 admitted that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question on or around 30.04.2015, it is a new vehicle, it requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components viz. air filter, fuel filter etc. at recommended intervals as mentioned in the operator’s service book given to complainant, for smooth running and optimum performance of the vehicle. The complainant failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator’s service book and the opposite party relies on terms and conditions in the warranty. The complainant did not produce any record to show that he got service the vehicle regularly as per the schedule in the operator’s service book. As per Clause-1, warranty shall be limited to 12 months from the date of sale of the vehicle. As per Clause-5, warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with their standard repair procedure, or by any person other than their sales or service establishments, their authorized dealers / sub-dealers / service centers. As per Clause-7, warranty does not cover normal wear and tear of the vehicle or the parts or any damage due to negligent or improper operation or storage.

            7.  As per Clause-4 of the warranty, tyres, batteries, rubber parts, electrical equipment and fuel injection pumps, not manufactured by opposite party No.2 but supplied by other parties, this warranty shall not apply, but buyers of the vehicle shall be entitled to, so far as permissible by law. In case of improper operation of the vehicle, warranty ceases to exist. The complainant has taken the vehicle after satisfying with the condition of the vehicle and its performance. The vehicle was delivered after carrying out pre-delivery inspection by the dealer opposite party No.1. The complainant did not produce any expert opinion alleging the manufacturing defect and he did not comply with the provisions of Section-13(1)(c) of the C.P.Act, 1986. During the period from 30.04.2015 to 24.09.2015 the vehicle covered 14,520 kms, which shows that the vehicle is in absolute road worthy condition. 

            8.  Opposite party No.2 further contended that there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint is baseless, frivolous and not maintainable. Opposite party No.2 relied on decisions reported in [1(2010) CPJ 19 (NC)] – Dr.K.Kumar, Advisor (Engineering), Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr., 2) [JT 2006 (4) SC 113] - Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr., and 3) [(1996) 4 SCC 704] - Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.  

            9. Complainant filed his affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Opposite party filed its affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B8. The learned counsel for both parties filed written arguments and advanced oral arguments.

            10.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question?

            (ii).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (iii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv).  To what relief?

            11.  Point No.(i):-  to answer this point, burden lies on the complainant. Except the complaint allegations, no other material is produced to prove that the vehicle in question is suffering from any sort of manufacturing defect. Even there is no whisper either in complaint or in evidence affidavit or in written arguments of complainant that the skilled personnel of either of the opposite parties stated on checking or on  inspecting the vehicle at any point of time that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. To ascertain or prove the alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle, there should be expert opinion or opinion of any mechanic of opposite parties or opinion of any authorized / competent engineer. But no such opinion or evidence is produced by the complainant. Therefore, we can safely held that the complainant failed to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and accordingly this point is answered holding that the vehicle is free from any sort of manufacturing defect.

            12.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, burden lies on the complainant. In order to answer this point, the complainant stated that he purchased IRISH CREAM – TATA ACE FACE LIFT HT-275 1D1 from opposite party No.1 on 30.04.2015 for Rs.3,94,909/-, which is admitted by opposite party No.2.

            13.  The reasons for the alleged deficiency in service are that 1) within 10 days after purchase of the vehicle, its tyre was blasted, 2) that the vehicle engine consuming high volume of engine oil, 3) because of the tyre of the vehicle was bursted, the complainant could not operate the vehicle for the purpose it was purchased. For the reasons best known, the complainant did not mention a) date on which the tyre was bursted, b) which tyre was bursted, c) where it was bursted i.e. whether the tyre was bursted while the vehicle was on the road or off the road,           d) from which date, the vehicle was off the road and what is the loss he sustained per each day and e) how many days the complainant could keep the vehicle off the road etc.  

            14.  Another point is, the complainant contending that he has produced the blasted / bursted tyre before opposite party No.1 on 21.05.2015. Here, Ex.B2 job card shows meter reading of the vehicle as 1400 k.m, Ex.B4 job card dt:24.09.2015 shows meter reading of the vehicle as 14,520 k.m. For 4^1/2 months the vehicle has run 14,520 k.m. Ex.B6 job card dt:16.07.2015 shows the meter reading of the vehicle as 9870 k.m for 2^1/2 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle. Exs.B2, B4 and B6 were not denied by the complainant. Thus, it appears that the complainant accepted the contents of Exs.B2, B4 and B6. Unless the complainant furnishes the period from which (from which date to which date) the vehicle could stopped or the vehicle was off the road and unless he mention the day to day income he get / earn by running the vehicle, the alleged loss of Rs.1,00,000/- he suffered cannot be accepted.

            15.  Nowhere in the complaint, evidence affidavit of complainant or his legal notices under Ex.A3 dt:02.06.2015, Ex.A5 dt:10.07.2015 or in his written arguments, the complainant stated that he has produced the vehicle before opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 for the alleged complaint of tyre burst, consumption of high quantity of oil or engine oil.

            16.  If the vehicle is produced before opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2, for either replacement of its tyre or general check-up or special check-up for oil consumption and if the opposite parties are refused to attend on the vehicle, then the complainant can attribute deficiency in service against the opposite parties. As against the complainant’s version that the vehicle could not run, Exs.B2, B4 and B6 clearly shows that the vehicle was on the road and run for more than 14,520 k.m within a span of 4^1/2 months, from the date of purchase of the vehicle (30.04.2015). In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite parties. Accordingly, this point is answered.  

            17.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2 and in the absence of pleading from the complainant to the effect that he has produced the vehicle before either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 for the alleged complaints of tyre burst and heavy oil consumption on a particular date and that the vehicle could not run for a specific period during which he lost his earnings, and when the complainant failed to deny the contents of Exs.B2, B4 and B6 job cards, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish deficiency in service and also failed to establish that he is entitled to any relief sought for. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for and complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.

            18.  Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that complainant failed to establish allegations against the opposite parties including deficiency in service and he is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for and complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 21^st day of March, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                                            

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1:  Kantipuly Chiranjeevi (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.

 

RW-1: Ms. Thinlay Chukki (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Tax Invoice issued by Varalakshmi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Dt: 30.04.2015.
	Warranty Claim (Original) of tyre. Dt: 21.05.2015.
	Legal notice Dt: 02.06.2015 sent to Varalakshmi Automobiles.
	Postal receipt acknowledgement (Online copy) delivered on Dt: 03.06.2015.
	Copy of Legal Notice dt: 10.07.2015 sent to TATA MOTORS LTD.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photo copy of Document (Satisfaction Note) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2
2.	Photo copy of Document (Manual Job Card) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
3.	Photo copy of Document (Tax Invoice Dt: 24.09.2015) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
4.	Photo copy of Document (Job Card – Shop Floor Copy Dt: 24.09.2015) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
5.	Photo copy of Document (Tax Invoice Dt: 15.07.2015) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
6.	Photo copy of Document (Job Card Dt: 16.07.2015) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
7.	Photo copy of Document (Rejection Letter Dt: 04.07.2015 from Apollo tyres Ltd) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
8.	Photo copy of Document (Copy of referral form Dt: 04.07.2015) filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

    

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                               President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.