DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 15^th day of July  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 15/03/2014   

                                                      (C.C.No.41/2014)        

Siji,

W/o.Gangadharan,

Kittu Nivas, Pulinirakkode, Peruvemba,

Palakkad.                                                               -        Complainant

(By Adv.Vinod.K. Kayanat) 

Vs

1.The Managing Director,

   M/s. Tata Motors Marketing and Customer

   Support Passenger Car Business Unit,

   One Forbes, 5^th Floor, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg,

   Fort Mumbai – 400 023.

   (By Adv.V.Krishnamenon)

2.The Managing Director,

  CUVV Automotives Pvt. Ltd.(Vijay Motors),

  Tata Motors Passenger Car Dealer,

  Chunnabuthara, Palakkad.                                   -        Opposite parties

  (By Adv.Venugopal.K.)

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President.

On 16/11/2012 Complainant had purchased Tata Indica V2 (LS) Diesel version car bearing Reg.No. KL-9 AE 1308 from 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. Immediately after purchase the car had starting problem and poor pick up complaints.  The complainant took the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party service centre for several times to remove the defects. The above problems continued throughout the year 2013. Complainant alleged that for every repair he was compelled to pay the work shop bill and other expenses to opposite party. The complainant has realized from the expert’s opinion that starting problem and poor pick up of the vehicle were due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Finally on 04-11-2013 complainant handed over the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party service center to cure the defects of the vehicle. But the opposite parties did not cure the defects of the vehicle. Then on 27.12.2013 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties. But they have neither replied nor taken any steps to cure the defects. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay Rs.4,50,299/- being the cost of vehicle and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

     The complaint was admitted and was issued notice to opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective version.

1^st Opposite party contended as follows:-

1^st  opposite party contended that this  opposite party has unnecessarily been made as a party to the proceedings. The relationship between 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is the principal to principal and this opposite party is in no way liable to or responsible for the alleged transaction between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of unnecessary party. 1st opposite party admitted that complainant had purchased a car from them. The vehicle purchased by the complainant is of a highest quality and complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance.

The complainant alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion. The 1^st opposite party stated that during the period  from 28/11/2013 to 10/12/2013 whenever the complainant had taken vehicle to the workshop of 2^nd opposite party with any complaint, the service personnel in the workshop had inspected the vehicle and such of these complaint noticed, being  minor in nature, attended to the satisfaction of the complainant. 1^st opposite party submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant or no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.

2^nd  opposite party contended that after delivery of the vehicle on 16/11/2012, first free service was done on 28/11/2012 at 1183km. At that time there was no complaint. On 3/1/2013 car was brought in at 4926kms with the complaint of starting trouble which was attended  by cleaning alternator unit and  second free service was also done at that time. Third service was done on 1/2/2013 at 8456kms. At that time only value of oil and connected accessories was charged. Since vehicle was under warranty no amount was charged for the repairs done for poor pickup problem.

The 2^nd opposite party also contended that the vehicle was brought on 4/11/2013, the same was taken back after replacing the Pump with another temporarily. After examination of faulty fuel injection pump by the supplier’s  engineer they decided to replace old pump. This fact was informed to the complainant then he brought back the vehicle on 5-12-2013. On10-12-2013 the vehicle was ready for delivery after replacing with new Fuel Injection Pump. This was also informed to the complainant . But he didn’t even care to take the vehicle back. From that date this opposite party was contacting the complainant to take back delivery of the vehicle. Opposite party submitted that surprisingly thereafter a lawyer notice was received from complainant, the same was also replied. In the reply notice  all these aspects were explained and requested to test drive the vehicle to evaluate the condition and take delivery. But the complainant did not do so. 2^nd Opposite party contended that they had  done all that is required to redress the grievances of the customer with utmost care and to the benefit of the customer. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant and no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of this opposite party.

In order to prove the case of the complainant expert commissioner was appointed. Commissioner reported that now the vehicle is in good running condition and no manufacturing defects are found in the vehicle. At the time of examination the vehicle was not having any starting and operating complaints as submitted by the complainant. Commissioner also instructed the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle from the opposite parties to road test the vehicle for more than 2 weeks.

Then complainant filed IA 398/14 to take delivery of the vehicle from 2^nd opposite party to road test for 2 weeks as per the direction of the commissioner and IA was allowed and complainant took vehicle. At the time of argument the complainant orally submitted that vehicle has no defect and is in good condition.

Complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed their respective chief affidavits and Ext.A1 to A14  marked from the side of complainant. Expert commissioner report marked as Ext C1. No chief affidavit was filed by 1^st opposite party.

Issues

1. Whether there is any manufacturing defect to the vehicle?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so what is the relief?

Issue No.1

Both parties heard. We have perused the documents on record. Ext A1 shows that complainant has purchased the car on 16-11-2012. 1^st and 2nd opposite parties admitted this fact. From the verification of Ext A8-A14, it reveals that the vehicle has the complaint of  cold starting problem, fuel gauge not working and less pickup. These defects are occurred well within one year from the date of purchase and within warranty period. In the version of opposite parties they admitted that the vehicle has poor pick up and starting problem and they replaced the fuel injection pump. Produced job cards proved that all defects are removed by opposite parties without any cost. Commissioner reported that now the vehicle is in good running condition and no manufacturing defects are found in the vehicle. On perusing the documents and relying upon the commissioner report we are of the opinion that the vehicle has no manufacturing defect and there is no need to replace the vehicle or refund the cost of vehicle. However complainant was compelled to bring the vehicle to service centre for curing the defects for several times within one year from the date of its purchase. This caused inconvenience, hardship, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. This is due to the wrong application of defective components to newly manufactured vehicle. These acts amount to unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party manufacturer. Hence, we are of the opinion that 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the inconvenience, mental agony, hardship and financial loss caused for taking vehicle on number of occasions for repair.

Issues 2 & 3

On perusing the documents Ext.A5 to A14 show that 2^nd opposite party gave proper services to the complainant. All the defects are removed from time to time without charging any money as vehicle was in warranty period. On 4/11/2013 complainant delivered the vehicle to opposite party for curing the defects. In the version 2^nd opposite party admitted that they replaced the faulty injection pump without any cost. On 10/12/2013 the vehicle was ready for delivery. But complainant did not take back the vehicle even after repeated requests. On perusal of the job cards issued to the complainant would show that complaints in the car were cured by replacing the faulty injection pump  by opposite parties.  Hence there is no obligation to replace the car itself in case any components used therein was found to be defective or was to develop a defect during the warranty period. Commissioner reported that the vehicle is roadworthy condition. As  opposite parties have given proper service to the complainant at every time   we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result we are of the opinion that the 1^st  opposite party committed unfair trade practice by applying faulty components in newly manufactured vehicle. By the act of 1^st opposite party  complainant has sustained inconvenience, mental agony, hardship and financial loss. Hence 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. As proper services are given by the 2^nd opposite party, he is exonerated from liability. Hence complaint is partly allowed. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony, hardship and financial loss together with cost of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) to the complainant. 

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which 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 15^th day of July  2015.  

     Sd/-

                     Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                     Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 series  –  Copy of lawyer notice dated 27/12/2013 to opposite party

                         alongwith postal    receipt and acknowledgement card

Ext.A2  –  Photocopy of Receipt dated 16/11/2012 issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A3  –  Photocopy of Tax invoice dated 19/11/2012 issued by 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A4  –  Photocopy of Registration certificate of Car No.KL-09-AE-1308

Ext.A5  –  Photocopy of Job Card dated 26/11/12

Ext.A6  –  Photocopy of Job Card dated 3/1/2013

Ext.A7  –  Photocopy of Job Card dated 12/2/2013

Ext.A8  –  Photocopy of Job Card dated 12/4/2013

Ext.A9  –  Photocopy of Job Card dated 15/5/2013

Ext.A10  –Photocopy of Job Card dated  30/5/2013

Ext.A11  –Photocopy of Job Card dated 5/8/2013

Ext.A12  –Photocopy of Job Card dated 25/09/2013

Ext.A13  –Photocopy of Job Card dated 4/11/2013 

Ext.A14  – Photocopy of Job Card dated 12/02/2013

Commission Report

C1 – Appu.P.M

Cost  

Rs.4,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.