Date of Filing      : 21.11.2022

                                                                                                                                     Date of Disposal : 15.09.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                        .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR., B.Sc., BL.,                                                                           …….MEMBER-I

CC. No.06/2023

THIS FRIDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

Dr.N.Hemachandran,

S/o.Navaneetha Krishnan,

No.203, MPS Salai,

 Thiruthani Town & Taluk,

Thiruvallur District -631 209.                                                                  ……Complainant. 

                                                                               //Vs//

1.The Director,

   The Tata Motors Passenger Vehicles Limited,

   Floor 3, 4 ,Plot -18, Nanvati Mahalaya,

   Mudhanashetty, Marg BSE,

   Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra -400 001.

2.The Regional Manager,

    Regional Office, Tata Motors Limited,

    ASV Ramana’s Tower 37 & 38,

    Venkatranarayana Road,

    T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

3.The General Manager,

    Sri Lakshmi Auto Enterprises India Private Limited,

   No.C12, 5^th Street, Ambathur Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.

4.The Service Manager,

   Sri Lakshmi Auto Enterprises India Private Limited,

   No.C12, 5^th Street, Ambathur Industrial Estate,

   Ambattur, Chennai 600 058.                                                         …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                               :   Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2              :   Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties 3 & 4              :   Exparte.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.09.2023 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, counsel for the complainant and Mr.S.Muthukumaravel, counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and opposite parties 3 & 4 were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER-I

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in not properly repairing the complainant’s car after receipt of payment along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to repair the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 20 CM 1246 at their own cost, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. That the complainant had purchased TATA HEXA vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.20.CM1246 in the year 2017 from Concorde Motors India Limited, Ambattur.  The complainant used to do all services of the said car from opposite parties.   The vehicle was handed over to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties to check steering, hand break fault and other general service.  The staffs of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties informed that the service charge would be around Rs.16,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.  After completing the service, the complainant paid Rs.20,217/- and Rs.1,11,580/- to the 3^rd opposite party on 09.07.2022 and 10.07.2022 through online transaction from his and his wife’s account also.  After taking delivery from the service station, when he reached Thiruvallur, the vehicle got stopped.  When the driver of the complainant contacted the service centre, it was informed that he has to raise the accelerator and then it will get pick up.  With great difficulty, the driver had driven the car to Thiruthani and left it in the shed.  The complainant reported the incident to opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party had rectified the trouble in engine and charged Rs.41,338/- and the complainant paid the said amount on 19.08.2022.  After two days, when the driver tried to start the vehicle, the same problem persists.  The complainant reported this to 4^th opposite party and asked the job card and details of the spare parts replaced by them.  But the 4^th opposite party refused to give the details.  Hence, he issued legal notice dated 21.09.2022 to the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties received the said notice but failed to comply the demands made in the notice.  Hence the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties 1 & 2:-

3. That the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable. That the complainant has made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized and notified laboratory under section 38(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. That the complainant filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any manufacturing defect proved in the car in question nor any deficiency in service being established against the opposite parties.   That the subject car in question met with an accident and was brought to the service centre for accident repairs on 3 occasions i.e. 20.06.2019, 15.04.2021 and 20.06.2022.  The complainant had suppressed the said material facts.  In this regard relevancy may be placed on clause 10 of the terms and conditions of warranty, which clearly stipulates that the warranty shall not apply to any repairs or replacements in the vehicle in the event of an accident or collision. All the cars manufactured in the plant of the opposite party were put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. Further it was stated that after being dispatched to the authorized dealers of the opposite party, the said dealers carry out Pre-Delivery Inspection of all new cars before selling it to customers as per the standard check-list. The complainant has purchased the car on or around 29.08.2017 from an authorized dealership of the opposite party and the said vehicle in question till 14.07.2022 has covered around 47,150km and it manifests that the vehicle in question within a period of 4 years 10months, had covered 812km (approx) per month.  The said car was in absolute roadworthy condition and the jobs carried out on the car were minor and running repairs, which were required to be carried out due to regular, continuous, extensive and faulty usage of the car.  The opposite party has been prompt and swift to attend to the alleged grievances reported by the complainant under the warranty as and when reported. That the relationship exists between the opposite parties was on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis.   Thus for the act of the one opposite party, another opposite party could not be held vicariously liable. That the complainant reported the vehicle on or around 20.06.2022 at 47,150km to the service centre of M/s.Srilakshmi Auto Enterprises Private Limited for Periodic Maintenance Service with complaint of brake grabbing, clutch slops and gear shifting hard, wherein the service centre duly attended to the vehicle and rectified the purported issued by replacing front brake disc, clutch kit and clutch slave cylinder, reinstalling transmission and gear box and brake pad.  It may be noted that as on the date of the said repairs, the vehicle was out of warranty period and thus the repairs have to be paid for.  Further under the warranty policy only the free service were performed free of labour cost by the authorized workshops of the opposite party and all the service other than the free services must be paid for, both materials and labour, material at prevailing rates for the quantity consumed and labour at the scheduled rates.  Hence the complainant was fairly charged and invoiced for the repairs and replacements parts.  Thereafter the complainant took delivery of his vehicle being satisfied with its condition and performance. Therefore there is no deficiency in service and manufacturing defects in the said vehicle.  Hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were submitted.  On the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were submitted. Though notice was received by the opposite parties 3 & 4 they did not appear and file any written version and hence they were called absent and set exparte on 24.03.2023 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
2. To what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

5. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle TATA HEXA manufactured by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in the year 2017 vide Registration No.TN.20 CM 1246.  He used to do all the services from the authorized service centre of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  Accordingly the complainant handed over the vehicle for service and check up to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  He had paid Rs.20,217/- and Rs.1,11,580/- to the 3^rd  and 4^th opposite parties towards service charges.  Even after that service the vehicle could not start.  Hence the 4^th opposite party serviced the vehicle again and charged Rs.41,338/-.  The complainant paid the amount to the 4^th opposite party.  Thereafter also the vehicle had occurred the same defects and the opposite parties did not rectify the said defects even after receipt of legal notice.

6. To prove the case, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 6 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.  Ex.A1 is the copy of estimate, Ex.A2 is the Tax Invoice for AMC, Ex.A3 is the Tax Invoice, Ex.A4 is the Online Bill payment, Ex.A5 is the legal notice by the complainant and Ex.A6 is the acknowledgement card.

7. Per contra the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties interalia contended that there is no such manufacturing defects in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service committed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The relationship between the opposite parties is on ‘Principal to Principal’ basis.  Thus for the act of one opposite party, another opposite party cannot be held vicariously liable.  The vehicle had run 47150km in 4 years 10 months without any fault.  Hence there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant suppressed the facts that his vehicle met with an accident on 20.06.2019, 15.04.2021 and 20.06.2022.  Hence warranty is not applicable to any repairs or replacements in the event of an accident or collision.

8. To refute the claim of the complainant, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties deposed proof affidavit with 4 documents which were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.  Ex.B1 is the copy of the Office order, Ex.B2 is the copy of the Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the name change, Ex.B3 is the relevant extract of the warranty policy and Ex.B4 is the Job card and Tax Invoice for the repairs at 47,150 kilo meter.

9. Even after receipt of summons from this Commission, the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties have not appeared before this Commission to defend the case and file written version within the stipulated period.  Hence the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties were set exparte.

10. It is not disputed by the parties that the complainant handed over the vehicle for rectification and paid Rs.20,217/- and Rs.1,11,580/-  and Rs.41,338/- towards service charges as evidenced from Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  It is made clear that the complainant had paid the service charges to the opposite parties without any demur.  Ex.A5 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties and Ex.A6 is the acknowledgement cards.

11. It is seen from Ex.A4 that the complainant had spent huge amount to get his vehicle serviced.  Even after spending such huge amount, he could not utilize the said vehicle as the 3^rd and 4^th opposite party had not done the service in proper manner.  Ex.B4 is the job card which clearly shows the works carried out in the complainant’s vehicle.  Inspite of spending such huge amount the vehicle is not working properly.

12. The opposite party had neither complied nor replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant. The opposite parties had not chosen to reply the legal notice.  More over 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had not appeared before this Commission to defend the case by filing necessary written version even after receipt of summons from this Commission.  The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties ought to have replied to the allegations made in the legal notice.  The non reply on the part of the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties amounts to admission of the allegations made in the legal notice issued by the complainant.  More over the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had not taken any action to rectify the defects in the vehicle.

13. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties.  We have come to the conclusion that the act of 3^rd and 4^th opposite party in not rectifying the defects after receipt of complaint from complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties committed deficiency in service.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

14. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle was rectified by some other service centre.  However, the complainant failed to provide necessary documents in this regard.  Hence, we are not inclined to grant any relief with respect to prayer No.1.  We have decided to direct the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost.  Complaint against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is dismissed without cost. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 and partly allowed against the opposite parties 3 & 4 directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

c) The above order shall be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt of this copy of the order, failing which, the said compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Dictated by the Member-I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-i and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15^th day of September 2023.

      Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

 MEMBER-I                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

    Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                        PRESIDENT