Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/80

Pooja Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Motor Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harminder Singh, Adv.

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.        :80 of 12.11.2021

             Date of Decision                     :31.03.2023

 

Pooja Kumari wife of Ashok Kumar Resident of H. No.3533/4, Adarsh Nagar, Rupnagar Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Branch Head/ Authorized Dealer, KKL TVS, TVS Motor Company, Near Bhata Sahib Chowk, NH-21, Chandigarh Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
2. TVS Motors Company Limited, P.B. No.4, Arita Hosur-635109 Chennai (Tamilnadu) 

      …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant             :         Sh.Harminder Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         ex-parte

For OP2                         :         Sachin Kaushal, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. In the present complaint, the counsel for complainants has averred that complainant purchased TVS Jupiter bearing Registration No.PB-12-AG-4227, Engine No.EG5AM1500273 Chassis No.MD626CG58M1A01256 two wheeler on 10.02.2021 for giving same as a gift to her husband Sh.Ashok Kumar on installments and OP finance vide loan No.PMR05035H and the same in the office of TVS Motor, Rupnagar and complainant also give OP Rs.10000/- cash. After 10.02.2021, the front disc/chakka of the above said vehicle was not working properly and in this regard on 18.02.2021, the husband of the complainant visit at OP above said office and disclose to the concerned employee regarding the above said problem then OP concerned employee repair the disc front chakka and handed over the vehicle to husband of complainant. Then again on 27.02.29021 the same problem was again happened with the above said vehicle of the complainant, then again husband of complainant took the vehicle at OP office and disclose that the front tyre/chakka is not working properly and many time the front tyre remained jaam and further the husband of the complainant also told the OP concerned employee that this problem is continuously happening with the vehicle in question then the concerned employee told that we will checked the same this problem  cannot be again happened in future. But on 01.03.2021, same problem was again occurred and complainant again visited the OP but OP told him that this is genuine problem which can be happened with any of vehicle but after today we will not give you any chance of complainant in future, if it will happened again then OP will exchange the vehicle. But the problem of the vehicle in question is still exist.  Lastly prayer has been made that the OPs be directed to replace the vehicle in question with the new one or to return the price of the vehicle in question. He also prayed that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the OP1 has choosen to remain exparte vide order dated 11.11.2022.
3. Upon notice, the OP2 has appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that the instant complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and made with mala fide intent and is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and it is and attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble commission, as the same has been filed by the complaint just to avail undue advantage and to cause undue loss and hardship to opposite party. The complaint is thus label to be dismissed under the provisions of the consumer protection Act, 2019 ( hereinafter r3effered to as the “Act”). From the perusal of the instant complaint, it is made clear that allegations, assertion, claims and averments made therein, are vague, baseless, vexatious and made with mala fide intent, the complainant had made misconceived and baseless allegations stating that there was deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite party; that complaint filed by the complaint does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Act as there in neither any manufacturing defect proved in the vehicle in questions nor any deficiency in service being established against this answering opposite party , hence the averments and/or allegations made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and he complaint is liable for rejection and the same may kindly be rejected in totality; that the present complaint is not maintainable against the Answering opposite party for the reason that there is no privities of contract between the complainant and this Answering opposite party. It is submitted that the complaint purchase the vehicle in dispute from the opposite party no. 1 wherein all the sale formalities were duly made and executed by the opposite party No. 1 and the complaint had paid the amount to the opposite party no. 1 herein. This Answering Opposite party was not a party to the contract and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against this Answering Opposite party only on this ground alone; that the relationship between this Answering Opposite party and Opposite party No.1 is on principal to principal basis. It is submitted that the dealers purchase the vehicle form this Answering Opposite party payment of full price and thereafter the vehicles are sold by the dealers to the end customers. All the issues relating to booking delivery, registration, servicing customers relations, etc. are independently handled by deals; that the present complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts and such, the complaint may be dismissed on this ground also. On merits, it is stated that as per the record of the Opposite party,  the complaint purchased a TVS Jupiter vehicle from the opposite party No.1 on 10.2.2021, and all the sale formalities in respect thereof were completed between the complainant and the opposite party no.1. The the complainant had  availed TVSM warranty for the said vehicle which was applicable for 5 year or 50,000Km. The complaint herein has wrongly alleged that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect it is submitted that the vehicle has no defects, whatsoever, as per the records of the answering opposite party the vehicle was brought to the authorized dealer of the opposite party on the following occasions. There were no defects in the vehicle as otherwise alleged by the complaint.  The subject vehicle has been used/driven/ridden for more than 14101 Kms in span of 1 year form purchase without any issues and this itself suggest that there are no manufacturing defects, whatsoever in the vehicle as otherwise alleged in the complaint. It is also relevant to mention here that the complaint has alleged manufacturing defect without submitting any expert’s opinion as per section 38 (2) ©  of the Act, which states:

“if the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysts or test of the goods, obtain a sample of the goods form the complaint seal it and authenticate it in the manner as may be prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory. With a view to finding out whether such goods suffer for any defect alleged in the complaint of form any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Commission Within a period its findings thereon the District Commission Within a period of forty five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by if”.

As such , the reliefs claimed by the complaint in the present complaint is liable to be dismissed forthwith. it is submitted that the law has been well settled in this regard by the Hon’ble supreme Court and the Hon’ble National consumer disputes redressal commissionwherein it has been categorically held that until and unless any manufacturing defect is proved, the complaint is not entitled to claim replacement or refund ofthe vehicle. The relevant case law are reproduced below for the kind perusal of this learned forum commission: without prejudice to the foregoing submission , it is submitted that the instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of the act . the onus lies on the complaint to show that the reliefs as contemplated can be given for the deficiency in service provided to the opposite party and /or deficiency in service on the pat of the answering opposite party. However, as per the record of the opposite party, the complainant purchased a TVS Jupiter vehicle form the opposite paty no.1 on 10.2.2021, and all the sale formalities in respect thereof were completed between the complaint and the complainant had paid the amount to the opposite party No. 1 herein. It is submitted that the vehicle manufactured by the answering opposite party pass through stringent quality checks and road trails before the actual commercial production starts. The vehicle manufactured at the plant of this answering opposite party are also thourogughyinspectedfor control system quality checks and test drive before passing thorugh inspected for control system work for dispatch to the authorized dealers.

4. In support of their versions, the learned counsel for the contesting parties have filed certain documents in the shape of their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record file, carefully. 
6.  The main controversy involved in the instant case is whether deficiency in service or unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs or not? This fact is not disputed that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question i.e. TVS Jupiter from OP on 10.02.2021.  From perusal of entire record, it has transpired that the complainant suffered the problem in the vehicle in question from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question, this fact is clear from perusal of job cards Ex.C-2 to Ex.C9 of different dates. This fact is not disputed that the pickup problem persisted in the vehicle in question from time to time and from perusal of above mentioned job cards, OP repair the problem as and when required.  
7.  From perusal of entire record of the file, it has transpired that complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP, vehicle was under warranty period at the relevant time, number of visits made by the complainant and its check up by OP each time returning the same with minor repairs and OP repaired the same, this fact is clear from perusal of various job cards of different dates placed on the record. The complainant has numerous times complained regarding the problem of disk front chakka.  The complainant purchased the vehicle i.e. TVS Jupiter from OPs against invoice letter issued by OP to the complainant.  After purchasing the vehicle in question , there was some problem in the vehicle as the front disk chakka was not working properly as noticed on 18.02.2021. The complainant visited the OP many times but still the problem of front chakka was not sorted out.   But from perusal of various job cards of different dates, this fact is also clear that the OPs repaired the vehicle in question as and when required.   The complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion to prove that any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question occurred from the first date of purchase of the vehicle. If problem occurred in the front disc of the vehicle time and again then it was bounden duty of the OPs to remove the defects of the vehicle as and when required. The case law laid down by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Tata Motors Ltd. versus Bishamber Nath Sikka and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 306 is applicable in the present case, wherein it has been held that it is very clear that vehicle did suffer from defects, as it had to be taken to the workshop of the dealer from time to time. The owner of the vehicle is not expected to take such vehicle to the workshop a number of times, unless the vehicle suffers from a genuine defect. It becomes duty of the manufacturer as well as dealer to solve the problem of the complainant and ensure that the vehicle is delivered back to him in a road-worthy condition free from all defects. Similarly, the case law relied upon by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. versus Dr. Koneru Satya Kishre and others reported in 2018(1) CLT Page 564-65 that  a defect in a vehicle may come under the category of ‘manufacturing defect’ or otherwise, a vehicle is said to be suffering from defect, it there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force. It would be seen from above that whether the defect in the vehicle qualified to be called a ‘manufacturing defect’ or not, it was duty of the OPs to take steps to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition.            Both above cited judgments are applicable in this case. In the above citations Hon’ble National Commission upheld the case of the State Commission.
8. In view of our above discussion and as per above citation of Apex Court, the present complaint is partly allowed. The OP no.2 is directed to remove the defects and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road-worthy condition. The complainant is directed to deliver the vehicle in question to OP2 within 15 days from today and OP are directed to remove the defect in the vehicle and delivered the same to complainant within further 15 days from receipt of above said vehicle in question. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

Dated:31.03.2023

 

 

 

 

                     (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                           (Ranvir Kaur)                                (Kuljit Singh)

                                Member                                            Member                                            President