CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 18/11/2010

CC / 150 / 2010

T.S. Sasindra,

W/o. Venugopal,

'Kadaksham', Hill View Nagar,

Dhoni Post,

Palakkad Dt. - Complainant

(BY ADV. S.T. SURESH)

Vs

The Manager,

M/s. Vijay Motors,

8/153(14) Vadakkanthara Post,

Chunnambuthara,

Palakkad – 678 012.

(BY ADV. K. SURRESH KUMAR)

The Authorized Person,

M/s. Tata Motors,

Marketting and Customer Support,

Passenger Car Business Unit,

One Forbes, 5^th Floor,

1,Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg,

Mumbai – 400 001. - Opposite parties

(BY MENON & MENON ADVOCATES)

O R D E R

BY SMT. PREETHA. G. NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant has purchased an Indica Vista Car with chasis No. 611452BQZP12131 and Engine No. 100A200000012087 on 25/06/2009 from 1^st opposite party who are the authorized dealers of TATA Motors. The complainant paid Rs. 4,61,750/- towards the cost of the vehicle, road tax, insurance and total expenses incurred for the vehicle is about Rs. 5,16,639/-. She used the vehicle continuously. From 4^th month onwards corrosion was noticed on the exterior part of the vehicle as some dots. The dots were first seen on right vertical window panels support and later it was seen on the same part on the left side. Seen as a spot initially it gradually spread over the entire part. Then in due course the same thing is noticed on the rear side dicky door just beneath the glass. It was brought to the notice of 1^st opposite party and they told the complainant that the photos had been taken and e-mailed to the 2^nd opposite party, manufacturer of the vehicle.

The opposite parties did not taken any repair to cure the defect. Subsequently the corrosion was noticed on the lower portion beneath the vehicle on the radiator support beam. It has been spreading incessantly to the whole panel and other parts of the car and at any moment the panel supporting the radiator and engine may collapse resulting in the fall out of both the radiator as well as engine.

Inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties have not taken any steps to rectify the defects. The complainant spent huge amount for the purchase of vehicle after raising loan from the bank it is really agonizing that she cannot used the vehicle. The non co-operative attitude of the opposite parties have caused untold hardships, mental agony and irreparable injuries to complainant. The complainant believes that the defect noticed is a manufacturing defect and it cannot be rectified at all. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to,

1). take back the damaged and corroded vehicle and supply a brand new vehicle of the same model and price or

2). pay back Rs. 5,16,639/- amount collected as price with 12% interest from the date of purchase.

3). Pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony.

4). Pay the costs of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions:

The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from them. But they denied that from 4^th month onwards dots were noticed on the exterior parts of the vehicle and at first dots were seen on vehicle window panels and latter it was spread over the entire parts. The radiator support panel and vertical panel are independent parts which can be removed. However the complainant being a loyal customer the 1^st opposite party ready to replace the radiator support panel and vertical window panel or any other part found defective. Rusting of parts can be caused by an external hit or damage which is not properly attended. There is no manufacturing defect as contended by the complainant and the alleged complaints if any, can be rectified by replacing the parts. The petition has no locus-standi and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant purchased the Indica Vista Car manufactured by them is of highest quality and she has been taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the car and its performance. Further it is stated that whenever any car reports to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, standard checks are carried out and mandatory noting is done at the backside of the Job-Card. The vehicle attended by the opposite parties dealers or service points fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specification provided for it by the manufacturer regarding quality and performance of the vehicle. The Automobile Research Association of India issues certificates to all vehicles manufactured in India, after thorough tests and reliability for commercial production. It is submitted that as a gesture of goodwill and in order to maintain a good customer relationship, the opposite parties are ready and willing to replace the radiator support panel and vertical window panel or other part that is found to have a complaint. The complainant has made the claim without any bonafides with ulterior motives and with the intention of making unmerited gain. So the 2^nd opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed affidavit. Ext. A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence produced by opposite parties. Commission Reports marked as Ext. C1 and Ext. C2. Commissioner was examined. Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are:

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

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues I & II

Admittedly the complainant has purchased the vehicle from 1^st opposite party. In Ext. C1, the commissioner stated that the radiator support panel was fully corroded and failed. The doors on front, rear (left and right), and the trail gate show abnormal corrosion signs. Brackets used for trail gate was corroded and paint was fully pealed off from the corroded parts. All the nuts, bolt heads, and washers show corrosion signs, uncommon in vehicles of this age. Door glass dividing channel was fully corroded and spoils the aesthetics of the car. Further the commissioner stated that the corrosion rate of all parts appears to be very high and it is likely to be spread to the entire body of the car with in a very short period compared to its normal life. Finally the commissioner stated that the metal sheets used by the manufacturer for making all parts of the vehicle are of inferior quality or it may not be properly treated chemically before the paint job. There after the 1^st opposite party filed application to remit the commission report to the commissioner for reporting some facts. The I A was allowed and the commissioner filed Ext. C2. The commissioner stated in Ext. C2 that rusting complaint in radiator support panel and door glass dividing channels can be solved by changing the individual parts. In Ext. C2 also the commissioner stated that the corrosion signs seen on the vehicle are abnormal for a vehicle of this age and the bottom radiator support panel has corroded extensively and failed completely.

In Ext. C2 the Commissioner noted the odometer reading on 03/08/2011 as 22460 Km. There after the commissioner was examined. At the time of cross examination the Commissioner deposed that the noted complaints are repairable or replaceable. The complainant stated that from 4^th month onwards corrosion was noticed on the exterior part of the vehicle as some dots. In Ext. A1 dated 30//07/2010 the 1^st opposite party stated that vehicle have been reported here for service and rust have been found on dicky door and beneath radiator panel. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 25/06/2009 from 1^st opposite party. In Ext. A4, the cost of the vehicle is Rs. 4,71,750/-. In Ext. A2 shows the complainant availed loan from State Bank of India. More over the complainant stated that she spent a huge amount for the purchase of vehicle after raising loan from the bank. The opposite parties admitted that the vehicle is corroded and they are ready to replace the defective parts.

But the observation by the Commissioner in the C1 report that the metal sheets used by the manufacturer for making all the parts of the vehicle are of inferior quality or it may not be properly treated chemically before the paint job. At the time of examination the commissioner deposed that the defective parts are repair or replace to cure the defects. But the Commissioner in the report stated that the rate of corrosion to all parts is aggravating and spreading incessantly after his earlier inspection on 30/03/2011. In Ext. C2, commissioner noted that rust seen on the trail gate, which is a separate panel is in a very bad condition and it is doubtful to be repaired to its new look. Moreover In Ext. A1 the defects was noted and reported to the 2^nd opposite party on 30/07/2010. Thereafter the opposite parties have not rectified or replaced the corroded parts.

In view of the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to

1. Supply a brand new vehicle of the same model and price within one month

   from the date of receipt of order. Simultaneously the complainant shall handed over the corroded vehicle on receipt of brand new vehicle.

2. Pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental

   agony.

3) Pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

4. If the opposite parties are failed to supply a brand new vehicle of the same model within the ordered period opposite parties directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 3,53,812/- (Rupees Three Lakh fifty three thousand eight hundred and twelve) (75% of the price of the car which come to Rs.3,53,812.50 rounded to Rs.3,53,812/-) to the complainant. Complainant shall also retain the corroded vehicle.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of January, 2012

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Job Card – Customer (Original) copy from 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ext. A2- Loan Account Pass Book (copy) of complainant issued by SBT, Chandranagar Branch.

Ext. A3 - Certificate of Registration (copy) of complainant's car.

Ext. A4 -Proforma Invoice (copy) issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil.

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

CW1 - Commissioner.

Commission Report

C1 - B. Rajesh Menon.

C2 – B. Rajesh Menon.