BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 27^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OPs to pay the repair charges of Rs.1,46,207/-, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and conveyance charges with interest at the rate of 10% p.a.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant stated that he purchased a TATA Nexon 2021 model car from Prerana Motors, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru on 12.02.2021. Though the vehicles was registered on 06.02.2021, it was delivered on 12.02.2021 to the complainant. It is further stated that since the date of delivery, the complainant had been using the car to go to his work place within the city and he used to get it serviced periodically without fail through authorized service centers i.e. KHT Motors K.R. Puram and Prerana Motors Kudlu Gate, Bengaluru. After the use of the vehicle almost for 2 years, when the second year’s service became due, the complainant called the Prerana Motors Kudlu Gate on 31.01.2023 over phone, for an appointment for service of the car, and the date of appointment was given only on 11.02.2023 on account of prior booking of other vehicles for service.

3. It is further stated that the car had run totally 10,030 Kms., till then. On 11.02.2023, when the complainant took his car to Prerana Motors Kudlu Gate, it was estimated for Rs.8,200/- towards usual service charges. While emptying the Engine Oil, the mechanic found a crescent shaped metal washer. On thorough investigation, they found that a washer from engine was crushed and piece was available while emptying oil and suggested the complainant to go for downing the engine to find out the cause of such crushing to avoid seizure of engine on road. The complainant consented for the same and after dismantling of engine, it is found that the engine head had developed a crack which requires replacement besides lathe works to the damaged part.

4. The complainant was astonished to hear the damage caused as the vehicle has covered only about 10,030 Kms., within a period of 2 years and it is nothing but a manufacturing defect, which the opponents are liable to answer. Though the complainant had called over the phone on 31.01.2023 itself but because of delay in giving appointment for service on 11.02.2022, the reasons assigned by the opponents No.2&3 that there is no warranty to the engine after expiry of 2 years which ended on 05.02.2023. In fact Opponent NO.2 delivered the vehicle only on 12.02.2021, there is not fault on the part of the complainant in subjecting the vehicle for service on 11.02.2023, then the engine would have been covered under warranty. Even otherwise, the Tata vehicle stated to be very strong and rated at 5, cannot be expected to develop such defect, within a running period of 10,030 Kms., which is nothing but a manufacturing defect.

5. It is further stated that the complainant got it repaired by paying Rs.1,46,207/- and got his car back on 07.03.2023 and he had to engage some other vehicle for attending his daily work. The complainant purchased the vehicle by availing loan and suffered mental agony an account of the above said manufacturing defect and lost faith about Tata Motors Vehicles. The complainant sustained loss on account above said break down of vehicle.

6. In that regard, the complainant issued a notice calling upon opponents No.1&3 to change the vehicle or to pay compensation and repair charges. Though the notice was served on OP Nos.1 and 3, OP No.3 sent a mail expressing its inability to pay the amount. However, Opponent No.1 has not replied so far. Hence, this complaint.

7. Notice sent to OP No.1 to 4 through RAPD, were duly served on them. OP No.1 and 4 are the manufacturers of TATA Motors, appeared through its counsel, filed statement of objections. OP No.2&3 authorized dealers of TATA Motors, also appeared through its counsel, filed their version.

8. OP No.1&4 stated in its version that, it has a large network of around 119 authorized dealers, 245 TATA authorized service centers and 222 TATA authorized service outlets, 219 TATA authorized service points.OP NO.1&4 denies the allegations made in the complaint, are vague, baseless and with malafide intention, alleged deficiency of service baselessly. OP No.1&4 taken contention that the complaint does not fall within the definition of consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the car in question, nor any deficiency of service being established to this against OP’s. It is stated that after being dispatched the vehicles to authorized dealers of the OP the said dealers carry out pre-delivery inspection of all new cars before selling it to customers as per the standard check list. OP No.1&4 admitted in its version that complainant has purchased the car on or around 05.02.2021 from OP No.2 who is authorized dealer of TATA Motors and the said vehicle in question till 11.02.2023 has covered around 10,030 Kms., within a period of 2 years, had covered 417 Kms., per month. The said vehicle is in absolute road worthy conditions and the jobs carried out on the car are minor and running repairs which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous usage of the said car. In the instant case, on the basis of the facts, it was held that the relationship of the parties is on “principal to principal” basis thus for the act of one party, another party could not be held vicariously liable.

9. This contention taken on the basis of judgement passed by Supreme Court in case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Counsel, Kerala. In the present case, it is clear that there has been no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1&4. OP No.1&4 further stated that there was no problem with the vehicle at the time of delivery and the complainant had taken the delivery after proper inspection and satisfaction. The same ought to have acknowledge by complainant in the vehicle delivery acknowledgement note. Therefore OP No.1&4 denied the prayers made in the complaint for repayment of repair charges of the said car are untenable and unsustainable. OP No.1&4 also denied the allegations of the deficiency of the service for supply of manufacturing defect in the vehicle to the complainant. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint with the cost.

10. In the version of OP No.2&3, who is the dealer, stated that the present case in hand is not maintainable and complainant has approached this commission by suppressing the material facts. The complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations in the defect in the car without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory or documentary evidence supporting his claim in the complaint. If at all, complainant has proved the manufacturing defect OP No.2&3 cannot be held responsible for manufacturing defect, since they are not manufacturers of the vehicle.  Therefore this OP is an unnecessary party to this complaint.

11. OP No.2&3 admitted that complainant has purchased TATA Nexon 2021 model car from OP, however the allegation that it was registered on 06.02.2021 is false. Vehicle was delivered on 12.02.2021, is clarified that vehicle in question was invoiced on 05.02.2021. Complainant stated that, after the use of vehicle almost for 2 years, when the second years service became due, the complainant called OP No.3 on 31.01.2023, over phone, for an appointment for service of car, the date of appointment was given 11.02.2023 on account of prior booking of other vehicles for service. That is the main allegation of the complainant for OP No.3 has not given appointment when he called on 31.03.2023, he alleged that 11.02.2023 is the date after lapse of warranty period which is given by OP No.3. The OP No.2&3 has taken contention that the reason for not giving appointment before 11.02.2023 for the intended service for this car was due to the non-availability of the service slots on account of prior bookings. Due to the act of OP No.3, complainant incurred money to attend his day to day official work.

12. It is further clarified that OPs are in the service industry and can accommodate only fixed No of vehicles for servicing owing to space and infrastructure constraints, personnel constraints and the other logistic, it is not intentional act of OP No.3. It is further pertinent to mention that complainant was well within his right to exercise his options of approaching other authorized service centers to get his vehicle serviced if he did not want to void the warranty conditions as alleged by him. OP No.2 and 3 stated that complainant has on several occasions got his vehicle serviced by another authorized service provider M/s. KHT Motors. It was the option of the complainant to send the vehicle for servicing on any date or any authorized service centre prior to the expiry of warranty period to be eligible for the warranty replacements and non-adherence to the same cannot be hoisted on OP. Hence OP No.2&3 is not caused any deficiency of service to the complainant as he alleged in his complaint. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

13. At this stage, complainant lead the evidence by filing affidavit, reiterated as stated in the complaint. In support of the oral evidence complainant filed 12 documents including certificates U/S 65B of IE Act, which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. In turn one Narendra Kumar .S, Senior Manager customer care services with OP No.1 adduced affidavit evidence on behalf of the OP No.1&4, reiterated as stated in its version. One Tharanatha K.B, Senior Manager of OP No.2&3 filed affidavit evidence reiterated as stated in its version.  In support to the affidavit OP No.2&3 filed one document which is marked as Ex.R..1 and OP No.1&4 filed 6 documents including Certificate U/S 65B of IE Act which are marked as Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.7. Heard both the counsels and perused the materials on record.

14. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP’s?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

15.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:-Negative.

Point No.2:-Negative.

Point No.4:-As per the final order.

REASONS

16. Point No.1&2:-These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

17. There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the car TATA Nexon from OP No.2 bearing No. KA-01 MV 4121, which is at Ex.P.1, is manufactured by OP No.1&4. The car delivered on 12.02.2021, registered on 06.02.2021 which carries a warranty of 2 years expires on 05.02.2023. As stated in the complaint, complainant with an intention to get it services, before expiry of 2 years he approached over phone for periodical service, due to the non-availability of service slot and space at service station OP No.3, given date only on 11.02.2023. This is a main allegation of the complainant, the date has given after the lapse of 2 years which does not comes under the warranty and made the complainant to incur a sum of Rs.1,46,207/- for repair charges which is noticed at the time of servicing. While emptying the engine oil on 11.02.2023, the mechanic a crescent shaped metal washer, on thorough investigation they found that washer from engine was crushed and piece was available while emptying oil. They suggested the complainant to go for downing the engine to find out the cause of such crushing to avoid seizure of engine of road. Complainant has given his consent for the same and after dismantling of the engine, it was found that engine head had developed a crack which requires replacement, the sides lathe work to the damaged parts. It was a shocking to the complainant since the vehicle has covered only 10,030 Kms., within period of 2 years and came to the conclusion that it is nothing but a manufacturing defect.

15. After going through the pleadings, affidavit and the written arguments of both the parties, the contention taken by OP No.2&3 that they have sufficient number of TATA Motors Service Centers all over the Bangalore, complainant could approach any of the service centers to get it repaired when it has the period of expiring warranty period. As mentioned in the version, OP No.3&4 given the statistics of their authorized service centers throughout India, the system of networking is centralized and customers can approach any of the dealer and service centers as and when required. As we all aware that vehicle owners need not have to wait for the single service centers, can be taken to the any of the service station for free service or paid service. Hence in our considered view, waiting for the appointment given by the OP No.2&3 was not required for get it serviced. As stated by the complainant, the reason for expiry of two years warranty was due to the appointment given by OP No.3 was delayed. In our considered view, OP No.2&3 has given their convenient and slot allotted to complainant as per the availability of space at the service station not on the ground of warranty expiration. As stated by OP No.2&3 in its version and also after perusal of Ex.P.6, we observed that complainant has given most of the time, vehicle to KHT motors for servicing, even 1^st to 3^rd  free services are also made through KHT Motors Bangalore, except on 06.10.2022, the paid service is serviced by Prerana Motors as per Ex.P.6. Hence on the above reasons we observed that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2&3 for incurring money on repair services by complainant for sum of Rs.1,46,207/-, however complainant has produced invoice dated 7/3/23 to prove the repair costs Rs. 1,46,207/- which is at Ex. P 9. In our considered view, 11th hour of expiration of warranty, complainant approached OP 3 and when they paid huge amount on repair, filed this complaint to get it back.

18. Now we have to discuss about the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, complainant has not produced any proper documentary evidence with regard to the manufacturing defect. At the time of argument, learned counsel for complainant failed to exhibit the job cards, pertains to engine has manufacturing defect and caused inconvenience to him at several times. Not a single occasion complainant has given his car for repair on the ground of engine has some manufacturing defect. In the reply arguments of complainant, complainant himself stated in Para 7, “there was no problem before bringing the car for periodical service. The complainant never dreampt about the fact that his car has developed a manufacturing defect. It was revealed while emptying the oil, in the service centre only”. It shows complainant never faced problem before this service. If in case the vehicle got any manufacturing defect, Complainant could realise one or more occasions. Then only it is called as manufacturing defect. Otherwise, it could be defined as running repairs.

We observed here that even complainant has not produced any job cards for the repair of the engine or any repair services to the vehicle in question. By perusing Ex.P.6, we observed that  complainant’s vehicle met with an accident on 17.08.2021 and 11.10.2021 got repaired at KHT Motors Bangalore by paying Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,354/- respectively,again met with an accident on 02.05.2022, got repaired at KHT Motors by paying Rs.2,23,783/-. Complainant in his complaint suppressed the material facts related to accident, is unacceptable. Without disclosing about the accident, complainant stated that he was shocked with metal washer and it was crushed with the engine part, is unjust and unfair. After the several accident with the vehicle in question, the parts might have crushed and got is repaired. At the time of present service complainant paid Rs.1,46,217/-towards repair cost and seeking the reimbursement of the amount incurred for repair by alleging manufacturing defect on manufacturer, is unjustifiable. No evidence has produced with regard to the manufacturing defect and also not sought any expert report from this commission by filing an application. In the absence of expert report as referred in case of Dr. K Kumar, Advisor, MaruthiUdyog Limited Vs. Dr. K.S Narayan Rao, passed by Hon’ble National Commission and several other cases referred by OP No.1&4 which have relevant and factual circumstances like present case in hand. Also U/S 38(2)(c) of consumer protection act defect is not proved by complainant. Relying on the judgements of the higher bench, onus on complainant to prove the manufacturing defect by producing expert report the complaint is not holding any weight. Moreso, primafacie complainant is not claiming for replacement of defective engine or replacement of defective vehicle or not claiming for refund of amount paid to purchase the vehicle, since the vehicle got engine problem within 2 years of warranty and more over, complainant got its repair when he took it for periodical service to OP 3, not protested to pay the repair charges on the ground of manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which is supplied by OP3. Considering the above points, OP No.1&4 has not caused any deficiency of service and also the vehicle in question has no manufacturing defect. Complainant is failed to prove the manufacturing defect and also not entitled for the money incurred for repair as he claimed in the complaint.  On the above reasons, we answer Point No.1&2 in negative.

19. Point No.3:-In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby dismissed. No cost.
2. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 27^th day of June 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.2&3;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.3&4;