D.O.F:06/08/2019
D.O.O:22/04/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.157/2019
Dated this, the 22nd day of April 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sajith Kumar P.,
S/o Ambunhi V.,
Kizhakkemuri, Achamthuruthi P.O.
Thuruthi (Via), Kasaragod District.
(Adv: K. PradeepLal) : Complainant
And
- The Manager
APCO Automobiles (P) Ltd
Citizen Nagar,
Chengala (P.O.)
Kasaragod. 671541 (Pin)
(Adv: K. Shahzad)
- The Manager,
Tata Motors Ltd,
4th floor, Ahura centre
82 Mahakali Caves Road
MIDC, Anderi East.
Mumbai 400093.
(Adv: V. Krishna Menon)
: Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per the averments in the complaint, his case is that he paid
Rs. 4,04,827/- for purchase of the vehicle TATA ACE from opposite party no.1 manufactured by opposite party no.2. Vehicle is subject to finance with Cholamandalam Finance Company. Dealer assured that there is no need to change engine of the vehicle till completes 10,000 kilometres. But even before completing 5,000 kilometres, engine oil became empty. Signal light was not visible in the vehicle. Vehicle is produced for power check-up. It was checked then confirmed that engine suffered defect. He went to pazayangadi on return vehicle stopped in middle. The opposite party promised to replace the defective engine and replaced in 12/03/2019. Vehicle suffered from starting trouble thereby stop in middle of journey. Engine oil consumption is very high expensive. The complainant is not able to repay loan instalments. After engine replacement, also vehicle suffer from starting trouble. He seeks to replace the defective vehicle with new defect free vehicle or to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.
Opposite parties appeared and filed written version. The opposite party no.1 in their version denied the allegations. And stated that they rendered service in time as per warranty terms. They are not liable to replace the vehicle and for manufacturing defect, dealer is not liable and thus to dismiss the complaint on merits.
The opposite party no.2 filed written version denying allegations stating that the opposite party no.2 being manufacturer, price is agreed as per terms of contract and opposite party no.2 is not liable for any of reliefs claimed whenever vehicle is brought it is altered in time. No manufacturing defect to the vehicle report of expert is wrong not liable to replace or refund. Vehicle engine is once replaced on request. No excess oil consumption is alleged therein and hence to dismiss the complaint.
The complaint filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1 by opposite parties. Ext.A1 to A5 documents marked. Ext.A1 is the Service book, Ext.A2 is the copy of the R.C. book, Ext. A3 is the installation certificate, Ext.A4 is the Tax invoice, Ext. A5 is the identity card and and Ext. C1 is the expert report.
The following points araised for consideration;
- Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle and whether the complainant is entitled to replacement of the vehicle or its engine?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so, for what reliefs?
The opposite parties originally set exparte, but as per IA 285/2019, exparte order set asided. The documents produced by the complainant, Ext. A1 shows that vehicle is taken to dealer several times for change of oil and for repairs. Attempt was made to rectify defect or provide service. But the complainant did not get desired result in time when the vehicle in use. So engine oil consumption was very high and opposite parties changed the engine of the vehicle. After changing the engine starting trouble and oil consumption in high continued. The Ext. C1 report clearly states that oil consumption is very high comparing to average consumptions.
It was the duty of the dealer and manufacturer to attend to such deficiencies immediately and if the supplier is unable to attend to the deficiencies and malfunctioning of the vehicle soon after purchase and installation of the engine, it would amounts to deficiency in service.
Furthermore, when the deficiencies in the vehicle continued to persist during the warranty period, including the extended period, the suppliers were righty held to be liable for deficiency in service.
Ext.C1 is reliable evidence that proves that vehicle in complaint is having over consumption of oil. Which cause heavy monitory loss, mental stress and agony. The vehicle stops its functioning on the way which caused insult to the complainant. Considering all the circumstances of the case,Consumer Commission finds that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will be the reasonable compensation and the complainant is also eligible for cost of the litigation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in partly directing opposite party no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service for the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Service book
A2 – Copy of the R.C. book
A3 – Installation certificate
A4 – Tax invoice
A5 – Identity card
C1 – Expert report
Cross-examination
PW1 – Sajith Kumar P.
DW1 – Manoj Kumar N.A.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
