Date of Filing : 30.09.2014
Date of Order : 08.01.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.414/2014
FRIDAY THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
T.R.K. Rajit Barat,
S/o. T.R. Kuppusamy,
No.32/31, Kuyavar Street,
Vilapakkam,
Arcot Taluk,
Vellore District 632 521. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Managing Director,
M/s. Concorde Motors Ltd.,
NO.42, Velachery Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600 037.
2. The Authorized Signatory,
M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.,
ASV Ramana’s Tower 6th Floor,
Old No.37/38, New No.52,
Venkata Narayana Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. The Managing Director,
M/s. Tata Motors Ltd.,
Bombay House,
Homi Mody Street,
Fort, Mumbai 200 001. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the 1st Opposite party : Exparte
For the 2nd and 3rd opposite party : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh.
The complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the Tata Safari Ex with the new vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant has purchased the Tata Safari Car bearing registration No.TN.11 2548 from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who is the manufacturer of the said car. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant by obtaining loan from the Tata Motor Finance Limited, as such the said vehicle was hypothecated to the said Tata Motor Finance Limited. The complainant has surrendered the said vehicle to the said Financier i.e. Tata Motor Finance Limited on 7.6.2014 as he had violated by committing default on schedule payment of the monthly installments of the above contract. After taking delivery of the said vehicle the vehicle started giving problem form the 10th day onwards and problem like Fuel Tank Cap opening problem, blower wiper spray not working and after 18th day non functioning of power steering, as such the said vehicle was given for service at M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore on 4.8.2012, when the vehicle was used with kilometer reading of 1866 k.m. The said service station has replaced the said steering box and other parts and completed the services on 12.6.2013. Again for the repeated problem the vehicle was serviced and steering box and other parts replaced once again by M/s. Concorde Motors, Ambathur on 26.9.2012 with the kilometer reading 11249 kms. Though they have refused to do such repairs stating no warranty for the vehicle subsequently they have done so on payment of certain charges for the parts replaced. Again the said vehicle was suffered the problem like Break oil leakage, parking hand break signal comes on, Horn sound goes down and suddenly no horn at all, smoke out from A/c. As such the vehicle found to be a manufacturing defect. With regard to the said complaint, despite of approach made by the complainant to the opposite parties through email and telephone and also directly contacting the staff of the opposite parties, the opposite parties have not rendered proper service and despite of complainant claim for replacement of the vehicle by new one they have not come forward to comply the same. Hence the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claims to replace the Tata Safari Ex with the new vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Even after receipt of the notice, the 1st opposite party did not file written version. Hence, the 1st opposite party was set exparte on 12.1.2015.
Written version of 2nd & 3rd opposite parties are as follows:-
3. It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties 2 & 3 states that the complaint is suffered from non joinder of necessary parties and the allegation made in respect of the problems occurred in the vehicle are all minor problems, already repaired by the authorized service centre of M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore. In respect of the allegation made by the complainant that the steering box itself replaced during the repair is not correct but only steering box liners were only replaced. Further, for the other allegations made by the complainant with regard to the vehicle suffering of manufacturing defect like break oil leakage and the steering box problem are all wear and tear and there is no expert opinion or any report from the qualified experience mechanic for the said allegation have been produced by the complainant to substantiate one manufacturing defect and the other allegations mentioned repair works are very simply in nature and were already rectified by authorized service centre M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore. Further the complainant having not paid the vehicle loan to the financier i.e. Tata Motor Finance Limited, the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to them on 7.6.2014. In the said circumstances these opposite parties are not liable to replace the vehicle or to pay compensation claimed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties 2 & 3.
5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
6. POINTS 1 & 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 filed on the side of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.
7. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant has purchased the Tata Safari Car bearing registration No.TN.11 2548 from the 1st opposite party who is the dealer of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who is the manufacturer of the said car. The invoice and the vehicle delivery acknowledgment notice for the purchase of the said car filed as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant by obtaining loan from the Tata Motor Finance Limited, as such the said vehicle was hypothecated to the said Tata Motor Finance Limited. The endorsements found in the registration certificate Ex.A3 proves the same. The complainant has surrendered the said vehicle to the said Financier i.e. Tata Motor Finance Limited on 7.6.2014 as he had violated by committing default on schedule payment of the monthly installments of the above contract, as per the surrender letter filed as Ex.A4.
8. The complainant has made allegation against the opposite parties that after taking delivery of the said vehicle the vehicle started giving problem form the 10th day onwards and problem like Fuel Tank Cap opening problem, blower wiper spray not working and after 18th day non functioning of power steering, as such the said vehicle was given for service at M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore on 4.8.2012, when the vehicle was used with kilometer reading of 1866 k.m. The said service station has replaced the said steering box and other parts and completed the services on 12.6.2013. Again for the repeated problem the vehicle was serviced and steering box and other parts replaced once again by M/s. Concorde Motors, Ambathur on 26.9.2012 with the kilometer reading 11249 kms. Though they have refused do such repairs stating no warranty for the vehicle subsequently they have done so on payment of certain charges for the parts replaced. Again the said vehicle was suffered the problem like Break oil leakage, parking hand break signal comes on, Horn sound goes down and suddenly no horn at all, smoke out from A/c. As such the vehicle found to be a manufacturing defect. With regard to the said complaint, despite of approach made by the complainant to the opposite parties through email and telephone and also directly contacting the staff of the opposite parties, the opposite parties have not rendered proper service and despite of complainant claim for replacement of the vehicle by new one they have not come forward to comply the same. The opposite parties have committed deficiency of service as such the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation against the opposite parties a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and cost.
9. Whereas the opposite parties 2 & 3 who are the contesting party denied the said allegations made in the complaint by the complainant and stated that the complaint is suffered from non joinder of necessary parties and the allegation made in respect of the problems occurred in the vehicle are all minor problems, already repaired by the authorized service centre of M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore. In respect of the allegation made by the complainant that the steering box itself replaced during the repair is not correct but only steering box liners were replaced. Further, for the other allegations made by the complainant with regard to the vehicle suffering of manufacturing defect like break oil leakage and the steering box problem are all wear and tear and there is no expert opinion or any report from the qualified experience mechanic for the said allegation have been produced by the complainant to substantiate one manufacturing defect and the other allegations mentioned repair works are very simply in nature and were already rectified by authorized service centre M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore. Further the complainant having not paid the vehicle loan to the financier i.e. Tata Motor Finance Limited, the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to them on 7.6.2014. In the said circumstances these opposite parties are not liable to replace the vehicle or to pay compensation claimed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. As mentioned by the opposite parties at the time of purchase of the vehicle the complainant was provided with the owner’s manual and service book and for smooth running and optimum performance of the utility vehicle cannot be denied by the complainant. According to the opposite parties the warranty given for the said vehicle shall be limited for 18 months from the date of sale of the vehicle, irrespective of the distance covered. Contrary to this the complainant’s contention that the warranty coverage for the said vehicle was 36 months is not acceptable. Since, in order to prove the said contention the complainant has not produced manual book and warranty card issued by the opposite parties at the time of purchase. Further as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the service book manual schedule for the mandatory service for the said vehicle have been given as mentioned in the proof affidavit periodically as well as on the basis of the mileages used for the vehicle. Whereas the opposite parties has contended that as per the said mandatory service mentioned in the service book was not followed by the complainant. However the complainant has brought the vehicle for service for the minor repairs for five times and were attended and repairs were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant. As such the service history of the said vehicle maintained by the opposite parties has been furnished in the proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties. On the side of complainant also for the services utilized by the complainant with the different service center of the opposite parties for the said vehicle on 26.9.2012, 8.3.2013, 17.6.2013 and 15.7.2013 the job card and tax invoice of Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 for the same were also filed. On perusal of the same Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 as well as the opposite parties proof affidavit mentioned service history records furnished thereon, as contended by the opposite parties the complaint mentioned vehicle was given for services for minor repairs as mentioned in the above said documents and were attended by the opposite parties are proved. Contrary to this the complainant contention that the vehicle was suffered major repair as manufacturing defect cannot be acceptable.
11. As per the above said service attended by the service station of the opposite parties for the complaint mentioned vehicle in the first service attended by M/s. Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore Service Station, it is mentioned in the history of the mandatory service furnished in their proof affidavit that change of power steering box was also mentioned in column job in brief. Contrary to this in the same proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and the written version filed by the opposite parties it is mentioned that no change of power steering box were attended by the service station is not acceptable. Further it is also acceptable that no proof of the contention made by the complainant that in the said vehicle two times the steering box was changed, there is no proof of evidence on the side of complainant that the power steering box was again changed in the Concord Motors Service Station, Ambathur when the vehicle was attended the repair on 15.7.2013. Even in Ex.A8, the job slip said to have been issued for the service done by M/s. Concord Motors, Ambathur, there is no mentioning of change of power steering box. Therefore we are of the considered view that on the available evidence of the records it is proved that the said vehicle was serviced in the M/s Vijay Sales Corporation, Vellore i.e. within one month from the date of purchasing along with minor repairs attended by the said service station. The power steering box also said to have been replaced is acceptable. However the said replacement of power steering box was not changed and collected from the complainant as it was done under the warranty. Therefore we are of the considered view that the defect found in the power steering box and which was replaced by the service station of the opposite parties under the warranty and will not be considered deficiency of service.
12. Further as mentioned above as per Ex.A5 to ex.A8 the job card and particulars of services done by the opposite parties for the said vehicle and the contents there on are all proved that the repair works are relating to the minor repair work, will happen to normal portion of using the vehicle that too without following the proper services required under the service manual periodically. It is also pertinent to note that the vehicle was given to service for repair with the opposite parties service station on 15.7.2013 as a last service. After that the vehicle was continuously used by the complainant and the complainant has not returned for any repair of vehicle or defect in its functioning after that and the said vehicle was surrendered to the Tata Finance Corporation on 7.6.2014. Therefore as contended by the opposite parties the vehicle was utilized by the complainant after taking delivery of purchase of the vehicle from 5.7.2012 to 7.6.2014 i.e. for the period of nearly two years and i.e. more than period of warranty more than 18 months and the vehicle was covered the mileages of 44520 kilo meters. Considering the above facts, as contended by the opposite parties the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was suffered by manufacturing defect is not true is acceptable. Apart from that as contended by the opposite parties the complainant neither produced any proof of expert opinion or qualified mechanic and report to prove the contention that the said vehicle was suffered by manufacturing defect. It is first and foremost duty of the complainant to give details, particulars of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and to establish the same by producing necessary evidence. Whereas in this case though the complainant has simply made allegation that the said vehicle suffered manufacturing defect by mentioning some of the defects occurred incidentally during the use of the vehicle and the same were attended by the opposite parties by their service station and were repaired as mentioned in Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 are all considered to be a simple repair only and they were not considered as major repair of the vehicle as manufacturing defect. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the vehicle had run for 44,520 kilo meters that too within a period of two years without any major fault no such of imagination it can be incurred that the part of the engine weak and the said vehicle suffered manufacturing defect. It is also pertinent to note that before filing of this complaint the complainant has handed over / surrendered the vehicle to the Tata Motor Finance Limited which is the financier with whom the vehicle was hypothecated for the vehicle loan that too due to financial crisis faced by the complainant. Further the Tata Motor Finance Limited is not a party to the proceedings. Therefore the complainant neither produced any proof for the suffering of manufacturing defect of the said vehicle nor provided the chance of this forum to send the same for expert automobile inspection and get report. The complainant has not proved the allegation made in the complaint that the compliant mentioned vehicle was suffered by manufacturing defect, is acceptable. Further in this regard the citation referred by the opposite parties contention i.e.
Bachan Narayan Singh
..Vs..
Eicher Plan & Marketing Head Quarter, Eicher Motors Ltd., Through its Attorney Holder, Sri Manash Nair & Ors.
Published in 2014 (4) CPR 40 (NC)
It is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as mentioned above.
13. Further as per the exchange of communications between the complainant and the opposite parties filed as Ex.A9 to Ex.A13 the main dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties are with regard to the re-structuring of the value of the vehicle which has been surrendered to the Financer i.e. Tata Motor Finance Limited which is not a party to this proceedings. Therefore the complainant contention that the value of the vehicle was loss for Rs.4,00,000/- within two years which is due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle is not acceptable. But as contended by the opposite party since the said vehicle was used by the complainant for the period of nearly two years utilizing the vehicle to run 44,520 kilo meters the loss of value of the vehicle is due to improper maintenance as well as the above use of the vehicle by the complainant only for which the opposite parties are not responsible are also acceptable. Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegation attributed against the opposite parties, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for against the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and accordingly the points 1 & 2 are decided.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 8th day of January 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 30.6.2012 - Copy of Tax Invoice.
Ex.A2- 5.7.2012 - Copy of Vehicle Delivery.
Ex.A3- 9.7.2012 - Copy of Ack. card.
Ex.A4- 7.6.2014 - Copy of Surrender Letter from the customer.
Ex.A5- 26.9.2012 - Copy of Service Invoice.
Ex.A6- 8.3.2013 - Copy of Service invoice & job card.
Ex.A7- 17.6.2013 - Copy of Job slip.
Ex.A8- 15.7.2013 - Copy of job slip.
Ex.A9- 22.7.2014 - Copy of emails sent by the complainant to
26.7.2014. Tata Motors.
Ex.A10- 5.8.2014 - Copy of Reply emails from TATA Motors.
12.8.2014
Ex.A11- 14.6.2013 - Copy of reply email from Tata motors.
Ex.A12- 12.6.2013 - Copy of reply email from Concorde Motors.
Ex.A13- 7.6.2013 - Copy of emails sent by the complainant to
12.6.2013 Concorde motors.
14.6.2013
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- 17.6.2013 - Copy of mail sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2- - - Copy of email communications between the complainant
and the opposite party
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
