| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel) New Delhi – 110016 Case No.932/2006 SHRI GAURAV ANEJA S/O SHRI HARBANS LAL ANEJA R/O FA/38, SHIVAJI ENCLAVE, RAJOURI GARDEN, BEHIND SHIVAJI COLLEGE, NEW DELHI – 110027…….COMPLAINANT -
- M/s VIVEK AUTOMOBILES
A-1, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI – 110044 - M/s TATA MOTORS LTD.
REGD. OFFICE : BOMBAY HOUSE 24, HOMI MODY STREET MUMBAI 400001 ….OPPOSITE PARTIES Date of Institution-21.11.2006 Date of Order-01.12.2023 O R D E R MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President - The complainant has filed the present complaint system and award of Rs.4,91,750/- along with future instalments and cost of present proceedings with interest at the rate of 12% p a. OP 1 is M/s Vivek Automobiles and OP 2 is Tata Motors Ltd.
- It is stated by the complainant that he purchased Tata Indica/ XETA/V2. It is stated by the complainant that from the very beginning the car had inherent defects as well as the CNG system fitted by the OP was totally defective with the result that the car was not running properly. It is stated that though these defects were pointed out to OP 1 from time to time but they have not taken any action except asking the car to be brought for inspection.
- It is a case of the complainant that the car suffers from starting problem once a day at morning, it has a coolant leakage problem, lock of backseat is not working, missing, bonnet of the car opens itself at any bump or speed breaker, gas valve leakage, central locking horn not working, power window adjacent to the driver seat not working properly and hiccups from transferring the car from CNG to petrol.
- It is stated that there is a danger of accident as the car suddenly stops without any indication while it is still in the running condition and the car has been damaged twice due to this accident took place on 18.08.2006. It is stated by the complainant that the car has been taken to the workshop 4-5 times but to no avail.
- It is the case of the complainant that he has paid more to get the CNG system fitted from the OP company so that his car would still be covered in the warranty however, he is unable to use the car properly and has suffered mental pain and suffering which he estimates at Rs 2,00,000/-.
- In the reply, OP 2 have stated that the complaint deserves to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove any defects in the vehicle, much less manufacturing defect. It is stated that complainant has not filed any documents job cards, vehicle history, report EC and that the alleged defects mentioned by the complainant are merely operational problems which may arise due to frequent and excessive usage of the vehicle. None of the defects mentioned in the complaint pertain to manufacturing defect.
- It is stated that the complainant has deliberately avoided and giving better particulars of the accidents such as the date and time of accident and their job cards relating there to. It is stated that the warranty will not apply as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions in case the “vehicle or the part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper and inadequate maintenance and servicing or accident or loading in excess excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us…..”. It is stated that complainant was using the vehicle extensively and negligently due to which the vehicle met with accident and therefore he is not entitled to any warranty benefit. It is also stated that the complainant is bound by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharti Nitin company vs DHL worldwide express (1996)4 SCC 704 wherein it was stated that when the complainant signs a contract documents he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and conditions in which he has signed the contract.
- It is further stated by the complainant that the extensive use of the vehicle would reveal the fact that there is no manufacturing defect and the vehicle and that the vehicle had been purchased for commercial purposes and therefore cannot complainant cannot claim himself to be a consumer under this Act. OP 2 has placed reliance on the judgement Satyanarayan Kasani vs State of Orissa 84(1997) CLT 265 as also the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering works vs PSG Industries Institute (1995) II CPJ I (SC). It is stated that complainant has not made even a whisper that the vehicle in question was purchased for livelihood purposes and therefore it is apparent that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.
- It is further stated that the complainant has not made out any ground for relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
- It is also stated that the relationship between the OPs is on principal to principal basis and the OP 2 cannot be held liable for any independent act or omission committed by the other OPs.
- OP 1 has stated in their reply have stated that OP 1 is only a dealer to OP 2 and is a facilitator and a service provider to the complainant on behalf of OP 2 and the vehicle of the complainant is still under warranty of OP 2. It is stated that OP 1 has not claimed or charged any service charge or fee or any remuneration from the complaint and till date therefore, complainant does not come within the definition of Consumer Protection Act .
- It is further stated that OP 1 has been calling the complainant to get the car inspected so the problems may be removed but complainant, on one pretext or the other has been avoiding the request of OP 1 and did not take his vehicle for check up in the workshop of OP1. It is also stated that complainant had never mentioned about the sudden stoppage of the vehicle in question till his last visit to the workshop of OP1 nor has he ever mentioned of this complaint in 2006. It is stated that the accident if any has happened due to the bad driving habits and negligence of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant has brought his vehicle to the workshop of OP 1 only twice and that too for the periodical free service on 14.06.2006 and then on 20.07.2006 for minor repairs in which no part of the car was to be changed.
- The complainant, in his rejoinder has mostly denied the averments made by the OPs in their respective replies. It is stated that OP1 has supplied the vehicle in question under his invoice and has received the money from the complainant and as such both the OPs are jointly and severally liable as far as the complainant is concerned.
- This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen that the complainant is no longer the owner of the vehicle, proof of the same has been provided by OP 2 in form of certificate received from ‘Vahaan’. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble NCDRC passed in Ramesh vs M/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. on 26 April, 2019 and Rajiv Gulati vs Tata Engg passed in 2013, the complainant ceases to be a consumer and manufacturing defect cannot be proved after the vehicle ceases to exist. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
- Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
| |
