IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 29th day of November, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 93/2022 (Filed on 04/05/2022)
Petitioner : Dr. Amal P. Babu,
S/o. Satheesh Babu Gopalana,
Gurukripa House,
Moonanni, Pala P.O.
Pin – 686575
(Adv. Toji Thomas and
Adv.Suchitra Soman)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. The Tata Motors Limited,
4th Floor, Achura Centre,
82 Mahakali Caves,
MIDC, Andheri East,
Mumbai – 400093
Rep. by its General Manager,
(Adv. P.C. Chacko, Adv. M.K. Jose
and Adv. V.Krishna Menon)
2. M.K. Motors,
Malankara Buildings,
Kodimatha, Kottayam – 686039
Rep. by its General Manager
(Adv. Siby Chenappady)
3. Hyson Motors,
Puzhakkal padam,
Ponkunnam, Thrissur – 680002
Rep. by its General Manager.
(Adv. C.J. Jomi)
4. The Malayalam Vehicles India
Private Limited,
Plaza Building,
PMB Junction,
EEC Market Road,
Muvattupuzha Market P.O.
Muvattupuzha – 686673
Rep. by its General Manager
(Adv. P. Fazil, aDv. Jithin Paul Varghese
Adv. Ann Mary Francis, adv. Sruthy R
and Adv. Prabitha C.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the consumer Protection Act 2019
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant had purchased a Tata Nexon car bearing Chassis No. MAT627150MLD 28505 and Engine No.1.5 CR05DYXW08247 from the third opposite party on 28/05/2021. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,36,932.8/- towards the Ex-show room price of the vehicle. The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle. The second and fourth opposite parties are the authorised service providers of the vehicles manufactured by the first opposite party. The complainant had purchased a three-year extended warranty for an amount of Rs 24,750/- on 27/08/2021 from the second opposite party.
The vehicle had a breakdown at an odometer reading of 7100 km. The complainant contacted the roadside assistance the service facility for the first opposite party. They have informed that the issue of breakdown is associated with the DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) issue. The vehicle was taken to the second opposite party and after repair the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 25/09/2021. The service advisor who attended the repair of the vehicle informed that the next service (second) free service was scheduled for 03/10/2021 at an odometer reading in between 7500 to 7600 km.
The complainant reported with the vehicle in the second opposite party service station at 9.00 am on 3/10/ 2021 and on enquiry with the front office they have informed that there are no slots booked for the said car on that day in the system and said the vehicle can be serviced in the next day slot. Complainant entrusted the vehicle to the second opposite party. The complainant filed an email complaint to the first opposite party due to this mental agony, stress and pressure by attaching the screenshots of confirmation messages sent by the second opposite party. Later on, the same day the second opposite party personnel contacted the complainants and admitted that it was a mistake on their part and ready to hand over the vehicle after service on the same day itself. The vehicle was handed over after service on the same day itself.
On 12/11/2021 at an odometer reading of9780 km, the vehicle had a breakdown issue and the vehicle was towed to the second opposite party. The complainant had also lodged his grievance to the first opposite party via email about the uncertainty of the breakdown of the vehicle after covering 2500 KM and after the periodic service. The complainant also pointed out a doubt on service which is below the benchmark as the second opposite party provided to the complainant. On 13/11/2021 a personal of this second opposite party informed that the vehicle was ready for delivery after curing all the mechanical defects of the vehicle. The complainant was not in station and requested the second opposite party to drop the vehicle to his residence and accordingly they dropped the vehicle on 15/11/2021.
On 18/11/2021, the complainant reached home and on inspection found several damages to the vehicle. The rear defogger switch and the center console were broken, tool markings were exhibited and the edges were damaged by the unprofessional and unskilled handling. Upon careful examination, it was found that the center console had been replaced without the prior information or permission of the complainant and had fitted with a faulty center console of some other similar motor vehicle.
The complainant then contacted the second opposite party staff who had attended the complainant at all the time of his visit, but he had denied all those allegations and argued and substantiate that all these were happened due to the wrongful act of the complainant himself. Then the complainant lodged a complaint before the first and second opposite parties with substantial pieces of evidence to prove the wrongful act committed towards the vehicle of the complainant.
Thereafter the said vehicle was taken to the second opposite party multiple
times within a short span of two months for rectifying the same issue. On 26/11/2021 the vehicle was taken to the second opposite party and again they had replaced the center console with one taken from another vehicle.
On 20/12/2021 upon multiple enquiries and request the second opposite party had accepted the vehicle for rectification. After two days the second opposite party staff informed that they had unmounted all the center console area of the dashboard and not found any fault with the wiring kits and unit. He also informed that the complaint to be rectified by replacing the center console with a new one. They had no stock of a new center console and the complainant had to wait until further information regarding the same. So, the faulty center console was mounted and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Many of the features were been useless due to the said act of the second opposite party. Aggrieved by this information the complainant lodged his concern to the first opposite party by E-mail.
The vehicle had again taken to the second opposite party on 4/01/2022 and had promised to return the vehicle after two days, but the vehicle was not returned and only after exerting much pressure and request, the second opposite party provided a spare car to the complainant.
The complainant approached the 4th opposite party for the third periodic service. At an odometer reading of 15,082 km, an annoying sound from the left side of the front wheel had been noted even in smoother roads. The complainant took the vehicle to the fourth opposite party and they had informed that both the underarm brushes and the water pump were malfunctioning and the replacement is inevitable. On 13/02/2022 at an odometer reading of 17,179 km both the parts were replaced and the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 14/02/2022.
Thereafter the electrical system of the vehicle started malfunctioning. The vehicle experiences missing and going engine off while riding the vehicle.
Eventhough the complainant had purchased the said car by paying a huge amount for his personal and professional needs the vehicle is not in a proper working condition. The complainant is suffering from mental agony as the vehicle is not in a fit condition for his use. The complainant cannot enjoy the same and is not in a position to go for a long drive etc regarding malfunctions and complaints.
The first and third opposite parties are very well aware of the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and they had wilfully delivered the faulty vehicle to the complainant. The act of the opposite parties are against the public policy and amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The second opposite party acted as a catalyst to make the brand-new vehicle as a scrap with the unprofessional and unskilled approach even though they were an authorized service center. The act of the second opposite party is also against the public policy and against the practice prevailing and amounts to unfair trade practice.
This complaint is filed for getting a direction to the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a brand-new vehicle without having any defects or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.12,24,686/-with interest after taking the defective vehicle along with a compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- for the mental agony caused to the complainant and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice done by the first, second and third opposite parties.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was duly served to the
opposite parties. The 1st, 3rd and 4th opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is that the relationship between the first opposite party and the opposite parties 2 to 4 are of principal-to-principal basis and this opposite party is not liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the opposite parties 2 to 4. The warranty offered on every vehicle manufactured by this opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions of warranty as contained in the operator’s service book.
The name of the complainant was not seen registered for the periodic service on 3/10/ 2021 but as a gesture of goodwill, the service personal line of the second opposite party had carried out the periodic service of the car on that day itself. On each of the occasions that the complainant had voiced an alleged complaint with his car, the service personnel of the second opposite party had looked into the same and such of those complaints noticed being minor in nature, attended to, to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further stated that when the car had been retained in the workshop for more than one day he had been provided with a spare car. It is further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect to the car as alleged by the complainant. The allegation that this opposite party has caused mental agony hardship and financial loss to the complainant is false. This opposite party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged loss stated to have been suffered by the complainant.
The version of the third opposite party is that the complainant had purchased the car from this opposite party and was delivered in excellent condition in all respects and without any defects. The allegation that the plastic covering on the centre console was seen removed and there were scratches over the piano black coloured panels over the centre console was absolutely false.
Door side beading was given to the complainant as a compliment as he being a professional. Moreover, this opposite party has provided adequate and efficient service to the complainant in all required occasions. The 3rd opposite party has no knowledge about the service details of the vehicle. There was no manufacturing defect for the vehicle given to the complainant. If any defect or damage is caused it is due to the mishandling and misuse by the complainant. The complainant is not having any cause of action against the 3 rd opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed. The complaint may be dismissed with the coast and compensation to the third opposite party.
The version of the 4th opposite party is that the vehicle was brought to the service centre on 15/01/2022 and complainant was fully satisfied with the service. Thereafter on 13/02/22 the vehicle was brought to service centre on noticing annoying sound and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. The vehicle was again brought to the service on 18/05/22.There is no allegation against this opposite party in the complaint and this opposite party is unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings and no relief is sought against this opposite party. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party on the ground that no cause of action arises against this opposite party.
The complainant had alleged that the 1st and 3rd opposite parties had wilfully delivered a vehicle having manufacturing defect to the complainant. The complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the second opposite party was not up to the bench mark and they dealt with the vehicle in an unprofessional and unskilled manner. There is no allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on account of this opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and of marked documents Exhibits A1 to A21. The first, third and fourth opposite parties filed proof affidavit, no documentary evidence adduced. Even though copy of the complaint was duly served to the second opposite party, they failed to file their version in time or to appear before the commission to defend their case. The second opposite party was set exparte.
On the basis of the Complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence
adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2 If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider points 1 and 2 together.
On going through the complaint, version of the 1st, 3rd and 4th opposite parties and evidence adduced it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Tata Nexon car manufactured by the first opposite party from the third opposite party on 28/05/2021 for a consideration of Rs 12,36,932.8/- The second and fourth opposite parties are the authorised service centres of the first opposite party.
Exhibit A1 is the tax invoice issued by the third opposite party on 28/05/2021 for an amount of Rs.12,24,686.8/- for the purchase of Calgary White Nexon car.
Exhibit A2 is the copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle having engine number 1.5 CR05 DYX W 008247, chasis number MAT 6 27150 MLD28505with Reg No. KL.35. K.9099 diesel vehicle registered on 07/06/2021.
ExhibitsA4 is the tax Invoice issued by the first opposite party on 27/08/2021for Rs24,750.50/- for the 3-year Extended warranty for the Nexon Diesel Car with chassis No. MAT 6 27150 MLD28505.
Exhibit A5 is the email dated 03/10/2021 to the customer care of the first opposite party regarding the denial of second free service as promised by the second opposite party on 03/10/2021.
Exhibit A6 is the email dated 18/11/2021 to the customer care of the first opposite party intimating that on examination of the car received from the second opposite party after repair, it was noticed tool markings in the centre console areas, the rear defogger switch seen broken, and the central console was mishandled removed and replaced without consent with a faulty one by the second opposite party.
Exhibit A7 is the email dated 19/11/ 2021 to the customer care of the first official party regarding the faulty centre console fitted with the vehicle by the second opposite party.
ExhibitA8 is the email dated 20/11/2021 to the customer care of the first opposite party as a reminder of the complaints filed vide Ext A6 and A7.
Exhibit A9 is the email complaint dated 20/11/2021 to the customer care of the first opposite party about complaint of sound from right rear suspension and requesting the first opposite party to thoroughly evaluate the vehicle by expert mechanical staff after final step of servicing and before delivering the vehicle.
Exhibit A11is the email dated 21/02/2022 to the customer care of the first opposite party stating that within 7 months of purchase of the said car, there were 2 break downs,3 times centre console changes,2 times wiring overhaul/checking, one time both the lower arm replacement and coolant pump/motor replacement and now the cars infotainment system is faulty and the car is getting off while driving. The complainant suspects that the car given to the complainant is a faulty one with multiple manufacturing defects and requesting for the refund of the money or to replace with a new car having same specifications. Even after sending deliberate mails to the first opposite party no official of the first opposite party have contacted the complainant.
Exhibit A12 is the email dated 18/02/2022 to the customer care of the first opposite party narrating the various problems reported to the car and intimating that car engine got off in the traffic and the car delivered to the complainant is having manufacturing defects.
Exhibit A15 is the email dated 18/02/2022 to the customer care of the first opposite party stating that the car delivered to the complainant is a faulty one with manufacturing defects and requesting the first opposite party to recall the particular car and either replace the car or to return the money.
Exhibit A16 is the email dated 21/02/2022 to the customer care of the first opposite party stating that within 7 months of purchase of the said car, there were 2 break downs,3 times centre console changes,2 times wiring overhaul/checking, one time both the lower arm replacement and coolant pump/motor replacement and now the cars infotainment system is faulty and the car is getting off while driving. The complainant suspects that the car given to the complainant is a faulty one with multiple manufacturing defects and requesting for the refund of the money or to replace with a new car having same specifications. Even after sending deliberate mails no official from the first opposite party had contacted the complainant and if there is negligence even to this mail, the complainant will take legal proceedings.
On analysing the entire facts of the case, it is evident that the complainant faced some difficulty on 03/10/2021, when the vehicle was brought for the second free service at the second opposite party service station. The complainant then filed Ext A5 Email complaint to the first opposite party and the issue was solved and the second opposite party had done the service of the vehicle on 03/10/2021 itself.
On 12/11/2021 the vehicle had a breakdown issue and the vehicle was towed to the second opposite party. The second opposite party conducted the repair works and dropped the vehicle at the residence of the complainant on 15/11/2021 as the complainant was out of station. On 18/11/2021, the complainant reached home and on inspection found several damages to the vehicle. The complainant intimated the second opposite party about the defects caused to the vehicle. The complainant also filed Ext A6, A7, and A8 Email complaints before the first opposite party regarding the damages caused to the vehicle by the second opposite party while the vehicle was given for repair on 12/11/2021.
Moreover vide Ext A11 Email complaint, the complainant intimated the first opposite party that within 7 months of purchase of the said car, there were 2 break downs,3 times centre console changes,2 times wiring overhaul/checking, one time both the lower arm replacement and coolant pump/motor replacement and the cars infotainment system is faulty and the car is getting off while driving. The complainant had filed Ext A12, A15 and A16 Email complaints before the first opposite party requesting for their intervention.
It is clear that even after sending deliberate mails; no official from the first opposite party had contacted the complainant, or had taken any steps to resolve the issues. The second opposite party failed to adduce any contrary evidence to establish that they had provided proper service to the complainant This clearly shows that the act of the first and second opposite parties amounts to imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or has been undertaken to be performed by the opposite parties in pursuance of sale of the vehicle to the complainant and amounts to deficiency in service as per consumer protection Act 2019.
Even though the complainant alleged that the said vehicle is a faulty vehicle with multiple manufacturing defects and sought replacement of the vehicle or refund of the cost, he failed to establish manufacturing defect of the vehicle with expert evidence. But it is clear that the complainant faced much difficulty and sufferings due to the deficient acts of the first and second opposite parties.
On the basis of the above discussion, we allow the complaint in part and pass the following orders.
1 The first and second opposite parties are directed to give Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two laksh only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part with cost Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry 9% interest from the date order till realization. The first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of November, 2023
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 –Copy of tax invoice dtd.28/05/2021 by 3rd opposite party to complainant
A2 – Copy of certificate of registration (Form 23)
A3 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.07/07/21 by 3rd opposite party
A4 – Copy of tax invoice dtd.27/08/2021 by 2nd opposite party
A5 – Printout of e-mail communication dtd.03/10/2021
A6- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.18/11/2021
A7- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.19/11/2021
A8- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.20/11/2021
A9 - Printout of e-mail communication dtd.21/02/2022
A10- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.20/11/2021
A11- Copy of tax invoice dtd.26/11/2021
A12 – Printout of e-mail communication 18/02/2022
A13- Print out of e-mail communication dtd.20/11/2021
A14- Printout of e-mail communication dtd. 18/11/2021
A15- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.18/02/2022
A16- Printout of e-mail communication dtd.21/02/2022
A17-Copy of invoice dtd.25/09/2021
A18-Copy of invoice dtd.26/11/2021
A19-Copy of invoice dtd.15/11/2021
A20-Copy of invoice dtd.04/12/2021
A21-Copy of invoice dtd.14/02/2022
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
