Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/155/2015

S.Ganesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.T.Padmanabhan

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.09.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.155/2015

 

S.Ganesh,

S/o Mr.A.Subramaniam,

24/49 Jyothi Nagar, 9^th Street,

Thiruvottiyur,

Chennai – 600 019.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Manager (Sales),

VST Motors Ltd.,

HO GOVE Building,

199 Anna Road,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.The Assistant Manager (Sales)

VST Motors Ltd.,

No.1049 PH Road,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

 

3.The Service Manager,

VST Service Station,

No.7 Poothapedu Salai,

N.S.C.Bose Nagar,Porur,

Chennai – 600 116.

4.The Manager,

TMFL Chennai South Branch,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

No.26/1 & 28/2, Q Block 6^th Avenue,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai.

 

5.The Area Service Manager,

Tata Motors Ltd.,

No.52, Venkatanarayana Road,

6^th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

6.The Executive Director-Quality,

Tata Motors Ltd.,

20^th Floor, Tower 2A,

One Indiabulls Centre,

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,Elphinstone Road,

Mumbai – 400 013.

 

7. The Sales Head,

TataMotors Ltd.,

20^th Floor, Tower 2A,

One Indiabulls Centre,

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elephinstone Road,

Mumbai – 400 013.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.10.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.T.Padmanabhan, M.Govindarajan

Counsel for 1^st  to 3^rd Opposite Parties    : M/s. S.Raghunathan, P.S.Deepika

 

Counsel for 4^th  Opposite Party                : S.Namasivayam, R.Balambigai Gowri,

                                                                    J.Ravindranath Singh, T.Saminathan &

                                                                    K.Hemalatha

Counsel for 5^th  to 7^th Opposite Parties    : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh        

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle and also the amount paid by him and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a driver and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Hence, he wanted to purchase a used vehicle for his earnings out of his savings. At the time the 2^nd opposite party employee approached the complainant and impressed him to purchase a new model Tata Super Ace Mint vehicle. The 7^th opposite party is the Manufacturer of the said vehicle. The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle and the 3^rd opposite party is the service provider of the 7^th opposite party. The 4^th opposite party is the financier. The 5^th & 6^th opposite parties offices working under the 7^th opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party also informed the complainant that the 4^th opposite party will give financial assistance to purchase the new vehicle.

          2. The 1^st opposite party issued invoice towards the value of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.65,000/- as down payment to the 1^st opposite party  on 20.02.2015 and 23.02.2015. The complainant purchased the vehicle and the same was registered as TN 03 Q 1271.  After three months of the purchase of the vehicle, it was stopped on the road on 17.06.2015 and he made a phone call to the 3^rd opposite party to provide assistance. The 3^rd opposite party visited the vehicle on the next day and informed that there is a major problem in the engine. The vehicle was taken to the 3^rd opposite party and job sheet S.No.208 given on 18.06.2015 and instructed the complainant to take the vehicle after two days. Even after two weeks the vehicle was not delivered, hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 29.06.2015 to the opposite parties 1,3,4 & 7. The 3^rd opposite party replaced with new engine and finally the complainant got the vehicle on 23.07.2015. The delay in repairing and delivering the vehicle caused mental agony to the complainant.

          3. Again on 24.07.2015 very next day the vehicle was stopped on the road and informed the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant left the vehicle on 27.07.2015 with the 3^rd opposite party for repairing the same. The 3^rd opposite party also gave job sheet in S.No.1932 on the same day. The 3^rd opposite party has not repaired and delivered the vehicle to the complainant inspite of that the complainant made visit to the service station along with his advocate. Till date the vehicle is with the 3^rd opposite party and not  delivered to the complainant shows that  the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle and also the amount paid by him and compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st TO 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased the vehicle for the purpose of carrying on his business by using it as a taxi in the name of earning for his livelihood and hence he cannot be considered as a Consumer and he has no locus standi to file this complaint.

          5. The complainant has not pleaded that he is unable to use the said vehicle leads to conclusion that the vehicle is good condition. The said vehicle was handed over to the 3^rd opposite party on 18.06.2015 for the first time and without giving time to study the problem in the vehicle, the complainant issued notice within 11 days of  handing over the same, shows the malafide intention of the complainant seeking replacement of the vehicle. The 3^rd opposite party studied the issue pertaining to engine and the same was replaced under warranty and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 27.03.2015.

          6. Once again the complainant brought the vehicle on 27.07.2015 and parked the vehicle in front of the 3^rd opposite party service station and demanded a new vehicle. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle after issuing satisfaction letter after replacement of the vehicle and further he had not pleaded that he was unable to use the vehicle shows that the vehicle is in good condition. Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

7.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 4^th  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This opposite party only lent money to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle and he has nothing to do with the allegations made in the complaint and this opposite party is an unnecessary party to this complaint. The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.4,66,000/- repayable in 48 installment at the rate of Rs.15,360/- per month stating from February 2016. However, he had paid only a sum of Rs.46,500/- and remaining EMI’s he had not paid and hence this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

8.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 5^th TO 7^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The 7^th opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and the executive director (6^th opposite party) of the 7^th opposite party cannot be held liable for any acts or omission on the part of the company. The dealer of the opposite parties only sold the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint with baseless allegations and to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle without expert evidence filed the complaint is not maintainable against them.

          9. The vehicle was manufactured over a period of years after undergoing several tests and also inspection conducted by the several authorities and also after carrying out the pre delivery inspection the vehicle was sold to the complainant by the dealer. On 27.02.2015 the vehicle was purchased by the complainant and till 27.07.2015 the vehicle covered around 9291 kms within a period of five months i.e had covered 1858 kms per month. This fact proves the vehicle was used by the complainant in a good condition. When the vehicle reported on 24.07.2015 for the issue of engine noise and starting problem, the same was rectified and that was not a manufacturing defect. For the second time on 27.07.2015 the vehicle was brought for the problem of engine oil leakage and that was also rectified and inspite of that the complainant was told to take delivery, he failed to do the same.  Hence these opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

10. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

           1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

           2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

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

11. POINT NO :1        

          It is an admitted facts that the complainant is a driver and he wanted to purchase a vehicle to earn for his livelihood and the 1^st opposite party issued Ex.A1 invoice to the complainant in respect of the Tata Super Ace Mint Vehicle with a tentative price of Rs.5,47,550/- and to purchase the said vehicle, the complainant paid down payment under Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 receipts and the 1^st opposite party also issued Ex.A4 Tax Invoice for the vehicle and with the financial assistance of the 4^th opposite party, the complainant  purchased the vehicle and the same was registered  in TN 03 Q 1271  under the registration certificate is marked as Ex.A6 and the complainant also paid few installments to the 4^th opposite party Under Ex.A7 receipts.

          12. The opposite parties would contend that the complainant purchased the vehicle for his business purpose and also to earn for his livelihood of his family members and therefore he cannot be considered as a Consumer. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act is deals about, who is a Consumer. In the explanation to the said section it has been clearly to stated that, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.  In the case in hand also the complainant pleaded that he had purchased the vehicle only for the purpose of earning his livelihood and for his family members and therefore by virtue of the aforesaid explanation, the complainant in this case is only a Consumer and the contentions raised by the opposite parties in this regard is rejected.

13. POINT NO:2

          Admittedly the complainant left the vehicle with the 3^rd opposite party on 18.06.2015 for the engine problem and the 3^rd opposite party also issued Ex.A8 job sheet to the complainant. According to the 3^rd opposite party before studying the problem in the vehicle for repair the complainant issued Ex.A9 notice. However, the 3^rd opposite party after replacing the engine with new one and sent Ex.A10 letter dated 15.07.2015 to the complainant that the vehicle is ready and new engine was fixed and running in good condition.  Admittedly the complainant also took delivery of the vehicle on 23.07.2015 from the 3^rd opposite party.

          14. According to the complainant again the vehicle was stopped on the road abruptly on 24.07.2015 very next day of his delivery with same problem and he contacted the 3^rd opposite party and on his instruction he left the vehicle with him on 27.07.2015 and job sheet Ex.A11 was issued to him and after rectification till date the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

          15. The complainant has not adduced any expert evidence how the vehicle is having manufacturing defect more particularly in the engine. The complainant concedes that after replacement with new engine only he took delivery of the vehicle on 23.07.2015. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is the complainant to establish that the replaced new engine has manufacturing defect by adducing expert evidence. For the second time Ex.A11 job sheet was issued discloses that engine oil leak in respect of the job has to be attended by the 3^rd opposite party/ service provider in the vehicle. This document was not disputed by the complainant. Further, according to the 3^rd opposite party after rectification of the engine oil leak, he sent Ex.A13 letter to the complainant to take delivery of the same. This letter was filed by the complainant proves that the vehicle was ready for delivery as early as on 13.08.2015, when the said letter was registered and sent  by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant. This letter proves that it is the complainant who had not taken delivery of the vehicle even after receipt of the same. Therefore, from the above discussions, it is held that the complainant has not proved that the vehicle or the engine of the vehicle has any manufacturing defect and even after rectification, the complainant had not taken delivery of the vehicle, establishes that the complainant has not proved the opposite parties 1 to 7 have committed deficiency in service and hence we hold that the opposite parties 1 to 7 have not committed any deficiency in service.    

16. POINT NO:3

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st  day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.02.2014                   Quotation of the vehicle

Ex.A2 dated 20.02.2015                   Receipt for Advance amount

Ex.A3 dated 23.02.2015                   Receipt for Advance amount

Ex.A4  dated 27.02.2015                  Tax Invoice

Ex.A5 dated 27.02.2015                   Summary of loan Account

Ex.A6 dated 04.03.2015                   Vehicle Registration Certificate

Ex.A7 dated 02.05.2015                   Receipt for payment of EMI to 4^th opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 18.06.2015                   Job Complaint Sheet

Ex.A9 dated 29.06.2015                   Legal Notice to opposite parties

Ex.A10 dated 15.07.2015                 Letter from 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A11 dated 27.07.2015                 Job Complaint Sheet

Ex.A12 dated 12.08.2015                 Legal Notice to opposite parties with

                                                    Acknowledgement Cards

 

Ex.A13 dated 13.08.2015                 Letter from 3^rd opposite party

Ex.A14 dated 18.08.2015                 Legal Notice from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A15 dated 10.02.2010                 Complainant Bank Statement

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                          ….. NIL ….

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT