By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:
This is a complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case:- The Complainant had purchased a TATA Tiago XZ 1.2 petrol Car from the Opposite Parties on 31.08.2017 paying Rs.5,75,000/- availing loan from Union Bank, Kalpetta Branch. On placing complaint as the vehicle did not get the offered mileage, the company informed that the required mileage would get after running 10,000 Kilometers. But even after running 34000 kilometers the vehicle did not get the required mileage. On running 5608 kilometer, ie on 21.03.2018, the filter pipe was damaged and it was replaced. On running 11,312 kilometers ie, on 26.10.2018, the break shoe was broken and the vehicle was broke down. On running 17,790 kilometers, ie , on 28.11.2018, the bearings were damaged and replaced. The above complaints could be cured only on extending the period of warranty. On running at 20,301 kilometers, spark plug had to be replaced. On running at 26,157 kilometers, ie on 25.03.2021 the air window was broken. On running the vehicle at 33,573 kilometers, ie on 30.03.2022, there was outflow of coolant from the vehicle which was noticed to the mechanic who told that the water pump was damaged. The Complainant demanded the Opposite Parties to replace the water pump free of charge as the pump was damaged very early and untimely but the Opposite Parties were not ready to replace it. Therefore, the Complainant had to spend Rs.7,400/- from his own pocket for repairing it. Hence this complaint for getting refund of Rs.7,400/- , compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
3. Summons were served on the Opposite Parties for appearance. They appeared but did not file version. Chief affidavit was filed by the Complainant; Exts.A1 to A3 series were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties filed common Chief Affidavit and the Sales Manager of 1st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. 3rd Opposite Party also filed chief affidavit and was examined as OPW2. 2nd Opposite Party had no oral evidence and the case was finally heard on 22.11.2023.
4. Considering the complaint, affidavits filed, documents marked, the oral evidence adduced by the parties and the arguments in hearing, Commission raised the following points for consideration.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there has been any manufacturing defect to the vehicle?
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties?
- If so the quantum of compensation and cost to be awarded to the Complainant?
5. Point No.1:- The vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant on
31.08.2017 and subsequently the vehicle was repaired with the Opposite Parties on 23.03.2018, 26.10.2018, 28.11.2018,25.03.2021 and 30.03.2022 which are evident from Ext.A3 series of tax invoice issued by the Opposite Parties. The present complaint is seen filed before the Commission on 12.04.2022. So, even though the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant on 31.08.2017, the latest cause of action is seen arose on 30.03.2022. Hence, the complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
6. Point No.2:- According to the Complainant, there was out flow of coolant from the vehicle due to the damage of water pump which is manufacturing defect and hence he demanded replace of water pump free of cost. But the Opposite Parties contented that the vehicle had no manufacturing defect and moreover, the warranty period of the vehicle had expired. In oral examination of PW1/Complainant, he has deposed that “\nÀ½mW XI-cm-dn\v tcJ lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. Expert s\ sh¨m IrX-y-ambn Ad-nbm³ ]äp-sa-¶-dn-bmw” But it is seen that the Complainant has not taken any steps for proving manufacturing defect through an expert, though he had admitted that he was aware that manufacturing defect could be known by appointing an expert. So, Commission is of the view that manufacturing defect cannot be attributed to the vehicle as it is not proved and hence point No.2 is not in favour of the Complainant.
7. Point No.3:- The Complainant has stated that on 21.03.2018, the filter pipe was damaged; on 26.10.2018, the break shoe was broken; on 28.11.2018 bearings were damaged; on running at 20,301 kilometers spark plug was replaced; on 25.03.2021, the air window was broken etc. The Complainant himself has admitted that the above defects were cured availing extended warranty. Commission finds that the above damages caused to the vehicle are ordinary occasional happenings in the ordinary course of running of the vehicle which have been, as admitted by the Complainant in the complaint, cured by the Opposite Parties in extended warranty. Moreover, the above complaints happened to the vehicle were not related to the same defect of recurring nature within a short period of time after the purchase of the vehicle. They were different defects of different nature. Hence we are of the view that there has not been any deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, point No.3 is proved against the Complainant.
8. Point No.4:- As point No.2 and 3 are against the Complainant there is no relevance for considering point No.4.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of December 2023.
Date of filing:12.04.2022.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Shajumon P.A. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Biju Chacko. Sales Manager.
OPW2. Ramesh. U. Senior Manager, Customer Care.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. dt:31.08.2017.
A2. Copy of Certificate of Registration.
A3series (24 Pages) Copy of Tax Invoice.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
