CC Filed on: 04.06.2010.
Disposed on: 25.01.2011.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 25th Day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 77/2010
Between:
Anjinamma, W/o. Venkatappa, Aged About 60 years, R/at: Bandarahalli Village, Duggasandra Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Now residing at:- Behind Gulet Police Quarters, Chikkaballapura Road, Kolar City. (By Advocate Sri.C.R. Krishna Murthy) -V/s- 1. The Managing Director, Tata Motors, Offices and Net work, Passenger Car Business Unit, Customer Support, 8th Floor, Center No.1, World Trade Center Parode, Mumbai-400 005, Maharastra. (By Advocate Sri.M.P. Narayanaswamy) 2. The Managing Director, M/s. Concorde Motors (India) Limited, Authorized Dealers of TATA Motors, Plot No.9/B, Division No.67, Opp. Christ College, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 029. (By Advocate Sri. Benedict Anand) | ….Complainant. |
3. Sri. Rajiv Dube, Vice President (Commercial), Concorde Motors Limited, Passenger Car Division, TATA Motors Limited, Plot No.9/B, Division No.67, Opp. Christ College, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 029. (By Advocate Sri. Benedict Anand) 4. The Sales Manager, M/s. Suki Motors, Authorized Dealers of Tata Motor Vehicles, Near KEB Office, M.B. Road, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri.S. Sridhar) | ….Opposite Parties. |
ORDERS
The complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that she purchased Tata Sumo Victa LAX bearing registration No.KA-07-1633, Engine No.483-D-156BTZ706377, Chassis No.446155 BT-2911323 from the opposite party No.2 through dealer opposite party No.4 on 18.03.2006 as per delivery note and paid Rs.6,07,266/- through D.D. dated: 16.03.2006. The complainant further stated that chassis and engine are of duplicate number. There is no originality on the engine and the vehicle has no capacity to carry 9 + 1 persons. She further states that she spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- for repair with opposite party No.4, but the said vehicle is still not in road worthy condition. On 01.04.2010 she spent Rs.3,228/-, opposite party No.4 has issued estimate for Rs.2,37,887/- for further repair and states that opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 have cheated her and she has incurred loss of Rs.3,00,000/- she has suffered mental agony for which both the opponents have to pay the compensation to her. The complainant further states that the said vehicle has been run for a distance of 77,641 kilometers from the date of delivery till today. She took the vehicle to Bangalore ten times for repairs and again on 17.02.2010 the complainant spent Rs.6,996/- towards repairs at OP service station in Kolar. After servicing the vehicle she detected that the vehicle is fully rusted and approached opposite party No.4 complaining that the vehicle is second hand vehicle. Opposite party No.4 issued estimate for Rs.2,37,887/-. The complainant further avers that she has used the vehicle only for personal use and not for hire purpose. She issued legal notice to opposite parties on 19.04.2010 and the same were served on opposite parties and they in-turn gave vague reply. Therefore the complainant has approached this Forum seeking replacement of the vehicle and also repayment of expenses incurred by her with interest and return of the loan installments (paid by her) as damages and for service charges incurred by her.
2. The above complaint was registered and notices were issued to opposite parties. In response to the notices the opposite parties appeared through their counsels.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed version contending that complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as complainant has purchased the vehicle for business purposes and operated it as taxi and has covered more than 80,156 kilometers within a span of 48 months and failed to undergo periodical servicing and replacement of filters, coolent, engine oil, etc., from the date of purchase. Further it is contended that from the date of purchase i.e., 17.03.2006 till 17.03.2010 the complainant had not reported any defects during any recommended servicing of the vehicle as per instructions given in the Owner’s Manual. It is further contended that during free service period the complainant has not reported any defects to opposite party, there is no manufacturing defect and the only defects if any, are due to wear and tear and lack of maintenance and therefore sought for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the warranty is to be limited for 18 months from the date of purchase or 50,000 kilometers whichever occurs earlier.
4. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 filed their common version contending that the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose and it is mere imagination of the complainant that the chassis number and engine number are duplicate, the complainant has not maintained the vehicle properly, she brought the vehicle for all the free services and thereafter for paid services at 25,000 kilometers, 30,000 kilometers, 35,000 kilometers, 45,000 kilometers, and 50,000 kilometers of running the vehicle. The said services were done up to 27.02.2008, the complainant has not taken the vehicle to any authorized service center till 17.02.2010. When the vehicle was brought in to the opposite party at 77,641 kilometers for the 80,000 kilometer paid service the opposite parties noticed that the said vehicle had not been serviced by these opposite parties i.e., authorized service center continuously for two years. Subsequently the complainant again brought in the vehicle for repairs on 01.04.2010 at 80,156 kilometers for screeching noise from engine and other running repairs. After inspection the vehicle was repaired and it was clearly informed to the complainant that the vehicle was not maintained properly and further repairs had to be undertaken for better performance. The complainant had requested for an estimate and the opposite party issued repair estimate to the tune of Rs.2,37,877/- which was the provisional one. The job cards of the vehicle from the time of purchase till about 50,000 kilometers do not reflect any manufacturing defects and had reported only for the mandatory free services and the scheduled paid services. They further denied that the complainant was given a second hand vehicle or that she was cheated by opposite parties and contended that the complainant has committed gross violation of the terms and conditions of the user manual with respect to service, maintenance and usage. The vehicle had run about 50,000 kilometers in two years and no manufacturing defects were reported or noticed during that period, the complainant has filed a false complaint based on misleading allegations and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Opposite party No.4 files separate version contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and denied that the vehicle was purchased through opposite party No.4 and also that opposite party No.4 was not involved in the sale transaction, further denied having issued estimate for Rs.2,37,887/- to the complainant and also that the complainant had spent Rs.3,228/- towards repairs. Further opposite party No.4 has denied that running of any service center at Kolar and therefore sought for dismissal of the complaint.
6. After perusing the complaint averments and Version filed by the opposite parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-
(1) Whether the complainant purchased Tata Sumo Victa LAX bearing registration No.KA-07-1633, engine No.483-D-156BTZ706377, Chassis No.446155 BT-2911323 from Opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.4 on 18.03.2006?
(2) Whether the complainant prove that there is manufacturing defect in the engine and chassis supplied by opposite party?
(3) Whether the complainant prove that the vehicle has been produced before opposite parties for periodical services?
(4) Whether the warranty of the vehicle has expired on the date of discovering the defect in the vehicle?
(5) Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
(6) To what order?
Point Nos. 1 to 4 are interrelated and therefore decided together. The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 4 filed their separate affidavits as evidence. Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed joint affidavit by way of evidence. Arguments of the learned counsels for complainant and opposite parties were heard and written arguments filed by them were perused. The documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties were perused in detail. On perusal of the documents produced it is found that the complainant purchased the said vehicle from opposite party No.2 as per the invoice dated: 17.03.2006 pertaining to registration No.KA-07-1633, engine No.483-D-156BTZ706377, and Chassis No.446155 BT-2911323 for a consideration of Rs.5,20,984/-, took delivery of the said vehicle and the said vehicle is registered in R.T.O., Kolar with effect from 03.04.2006. It is also noticed from the documents perused that the complainant has taken the vehicle for all free services and paid services up to 27.02.2008. But subsequently the complainant did not get any periodical services of the vehicle done through opposite party i.e., authorized service center for a period of two years (from 28.02.2008 to 17.02.2010). The complainant had not reported any defect in the vehicle, engine or chassis during the said free and paid services the vehicle had undergone with opposite parties (authorized service center) from the date of vehicle purchase till 27.02.2008 or till 17.02.2010. This clearly shows that from 17.03.2006 till 17.02.2010 no defects were noticed. The defects if any as alleged by the complainant are only due to wear and tier and for lack of maintenance of the vehicle. Therefore the complainant has failed to prove that opposite party No.2 sold the defective vehicle to her. It is further noticed from the warranty terms and conditions that the warranty shall be limited from the date of purchase of the vehicle namely TATA Sumo Victa for 18 months or 50,000 kilometers whichever occurs earlier. The complainant neither detected nor reported any defects in the said vehicle for a period of four years from the date of purchase during which period the vehicle has been run for nearly 80,000 kilometers. The repair charges paid by the complainant for which bills are produced can be presumed to be repairs during normal course of running the vehicle and not due to any major defect in the vehicle. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any manufacturing defects in the said vehicle for which opposite parties could be made liable. The defects noticed are due to wear and tier and for lack of maintenance. Therefore Point Nos. 1 to 4 are held in Negative and therefore Point No.5 does not arise.
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed against opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25th Day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
