My mother bought a car on 9th nov 2009.and its air condition damaged on 10th nov
2009.i complaint to the service and they told me its compressor has problem and they
will replace it by 3 days.but they cal me on 19th nov and said compressor has
reached from pune . I gave it for rectification on 21st nov 2009.but still they
don’t give my car and no one call from fiat.i complaint directly to tata motors and
fiat.but no use.a lady from tata motors use abuse words.so finally we dont know
where is our car and cash..

Consumer Complaint No: 131/2008



Between:

Mr.Ashok Kumar Bajaj, S/o D.R.Bajaj, aged 47 years, businessman, residing at Flat No.501, Prayaga Residency, Mythreyi Nagar, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam-3.

… Complainant

A n d :

Tata Motors Ltd. (Passenger Car Business Unit) reptd. By its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001.

… Opposite Parties



This case is coming on for final hearing on 27-11-2009 in the presence of Sri CNSP Krishna Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.G.Venkatareddy for the opposite party and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.



: O R D E R :

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)



1. The case of the complainant, as per the complaint, is he purchased a Tata Indigo Car bearing chassis No.607144LTZPF7432, Engine No.4751DT14LTZPF4792 on 22-12-2006 from Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd., Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-3, the authorized dealer of the opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,76,968/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy six thousand nine hundred and sixty only) inclusive of the tax and he was delivered the vehicle on 25-12-2006. Now it bears the Registration No.AP 31 AQ 3767. He claimed to have noticed at the time of delivery itself, an odd sound emanating from the engine and when brought to the notice of the employees of the dealer, he was assured that the sound relates to fan belt, which needs a small adjustment and will be rectified on the next day and accordingly rectified. However that sound persisted and he was forced to take his vehicle regularly to the dealer’s workshop and thus in between 25-12-2006 and 20-12-2007, he approached the dealer for more than 25 times. Sometimes the problem was attended summarily and around 11 times the vehicle was retained at the garage and returned only after 3-4 days. In spite of it, there was no reduction in the sound. Ultimately he took the vehicle to the dealer twice, once on 20-10-2007, and finally on 20-12-2007, but the defect of the sound from the engine remained. So he claimed to have taken the vehicle to a 3rd party technician by name Sri G.Kutumba Rao, running the workshop at Kanaka Durga Motors in Gajuwaka area, who had a vast experience in attending on these cars and even worked with the opposite party in Hyderabad and also local dealer at Visakhapatnam. The said Kutumba Rao informed that it is a manufacturing defect with Tata Indigo vehicles because of which the sound is coming and except replacement of vehicle, there is no other possible solution. Hence this complaint for replacement of his Tata Indigo passenger car or total reimbursement of purchase price of Rs.4,76,968/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy six thousand nine hundred and sixty eight only) which vehicle taxes and also pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) for the continuous inconvenience and mental anguish because of the use of defective vehicle.

2. The opposite party, the manufacturer, while admitting the purchase of vehicle from its dealer and also the vehicle being brought to the workshop twice, once on 19-4-2007 and 24-07-2007, pleaded that on checking, it was found that the fan belt was loosened, which is rectified and on the second day i.e 24-07-2007, the technicians did not find any abnormal sound at all. The complainant was taking delivery of the vehicle, every time by issuing satisfaction note, after rectification of the complaint every time. They challenged the competence of the technician, Kutumba Rao, and pleaded that he does not have knowledge of recent modifications and the developments on the present Tata Auto Motors vehicles and asserted that the sound is emanating from the fan belt in engine, but not from the engine itself and hence it is not a manufacturing defect and as such, question of replacement of vehicle does not arise and hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs. 3. At the time of enquiry, the complainant besides filing his own affidavit, also filed affidavit of the technician, Kutumba Rao together with documents of his technical qualifications and experience. He marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents. The opposite party, on the other hand, filed affidavits of its Divisional Manager (Legal) and also Works Manager of the SRMT workshop at Visakhapatnam, its dealer. It marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B23 of the job cards in respect of the complainant’s vehicle as well as other vehicles with similar complaint. Both the counsels were heard.

4. It is the contention of the counsel for complainant that the fact of the screeching sound from the engine of the vehicle purchased by the complainant not being seriously in dispute and the documents filed by both sides would show that number of times, the complainant was forced to take the vehicle to the workshop with the same complaint of screeching sound in the engine and in the light of the affidavit of 3rd party technique i.e in manufacturing defect, the complainant could establish that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He pleaded that the note of satisfaction was obtained from the complainant in a routine manner and vehemently urged that the very fact that within one year from the date of purchase, the complainant is forced to take his vehicle to the workshop due to the persisting defect of screeching sound in the engine would itself prove the amount of inconvenience, mental agony, loss of time and money to the complainant. He urged that when such being the case, he is entitled for the replacement of vehicle asked for or refund of the cost of the vehicle. It also pleaded for award of compensation instead of his contention as to when replacement of vehicle has to be granted. The learned counsel for complainant relied upon two decisions of the National Commission in Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Vs. Affiliated East West Press Private Ltd., 1(2008) CPJ page 19 NC and Nachiket P.Shirgaonkar Vs. Pandit Auto Material Limited and another 2 (2008) CPJ Page 308 NC. He also relied upon another decision in Kinetic Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Santhosh Kumar Prasad 3(2008) CPJ 266 NC (Delhi SCVRC).

5. On the other hand, it is the contention of the counsel for the opposite party that unless it is established that it is a manufacturing defect by way of evidence, the complainant is not entitled to asked for replacement of vehicle. He urged that the screeching sound was defect in the fan belt but not in the engine and thus it is not a manufacturing defect at all. He pointed out that even this defect is not persisting in the complainant’s vehicle, as some job cards did not show this complaint in his vehicle. He ultimately urged that it is not his case that the vehicle is found to be not fit for use at all and undisputedly he has been using the vehicle all these three years and there was no major repair of the vehicle at any time and such being the case, there is no justification to plead for replacement of the vehicle. He pointed out that other vehicles of the same make were also having similar defect, as can be seen from the job cards of those vehicles filed by him and there was never any complaint by the customer in this regard by these owners.

6. In view of the respective contentions the point that would arise for determination in this complaint is:

Whether the complainant could establish that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and he is entitled for replacement of the vehicle or alternatively for refund of its value, besides compensation?

7. The fact that the complainant’s Tata Indigo Car has got the problem of screeching noise from the engine could not be seriously disputed by the opposite party. Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 are the job cards issued by the work shop for the complainant’s vehicle right from 6-4-2007 to 10-1-2008 when it was presented with the complaint. All these job cards some of them namely, Ex.B2,Ex.B5,Ex.B7,Ex.B8,Ex.B9 job cards would show the complaint of this screeching noise from the engine during the years 2007-08 also. As a matter of fact, the job cards relating to other vehicles of same model filed by the opposite party itself would show that even vehicles make from 2006-08 are also having similar complaint of screeching noise from the engine. Thus it is clearly established that screeching noise from the engine in the vehicles of the company, was there right from 2006. Simply because there is not much the fact that the cards have such defect from the beginning cannot be ignored.

8. The affidavit of the complainant’s witness PW-2 Kutumbarao, running Kanaka Durga Motors Mechanic Shed Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam would clearly show that in many Tata vehicles, this kind of trouble did surface earlier, but the sound was tolerable in many cases. He further stated that initially when complaints about sound emanating from the engine came to light, the company (Tata Motors) even embarked on a change in retrofitment and after such correction, the incidence got reduced, though the trouble persisted in some cases. He was of the opinion that it is a manufacturing defect, but not a simple complaint of fan belt. He was of the further opinion that the vehicle may come to a total halt cannot be ruled out. Though his competency to certify like that have been challenged by the opposite party, the documents filed along with this affidavit would show that this Kutumba rao worked in Concord Motors Ltd., a Tata concern itself at Hyderabad unit for three years. Similarly the other document would show that he underwent training in Institute of Motor Industry and obtained National Vocational qualification level-II Vehicle Mechanic and Electrical systems. The other document is the pay slip for the month of July 1999 issued by the SRMT i.e dealer of vehicle at kakinada and claimed that he worked with the SRMT for three years. This would show that this Kutumba Rao is a qualified person and we find no reason to discreet to this statement that it is a manufacturing defect.

9. Even otherwise when it is shown that such a defect exists in number of vehicles of this make, as can be seen from Ex.B15-Ex.B23, vehicles owned by other people, in our view it is to be treated as a manufacturing defect, as otherwise similar complaint would not have a result in so many vehicles of the same make and model. Thus we need not hesitate to conclude that it is a manufacturing defect when the vehicle is found to have a defect and the same continues to be there even after rectification number of times. The assertion of the opposite party that there is no defect at all, in spite of the knowledge that similar defect exists in other vehicles of same model also, he has been refusing to redress the grievance of the customer, is nothing but deficiency in service and even amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

10. The three decisions relied upon by the counsel for complainant would undoubtedly show that when it is shown to be having manufacturing defect, the company is bound to replace the vehicle or refund the cost of the vehicle. However, as can be seen from those three decisions, it is to be noted that the vehicles there in were having major defects such as black smoking, diesel smell as in the case of Hyundai Motors case; engine noise and poor pick up,besides water seepage as in the second case of Shirgaonkar V Auto Material Limited wherein the opposite party admitted defective engine and problems and failed to replace but in our case the only complaint was screeching sound in the engine and as admitted by the opposite party, that sound used to be there for a short while at the time of starting the vehicle. There is no other major complaint. It is not the case of the complaint that during this period of three years, because of this defect, there was break down of the vehicle at any point of time. Admittedly he has been using the vehicle through out this period. This would show that the defect found is not interfering with the running of the vehicle. But at the same time, the inconvenience, the mental agony and tension such a defect would cause in the owner, i.e the complainant cannot be ignored. Thus in our view instead of ordering replacement of the vehicle it would be just and proper that the vehicles fitness should be ensured by the opposite party beyond the warranty period already given, for another period of three years, besides providing free service to the vehicle during this extended period also.

11. Apart from this, taking into consideration the dissatisfaction of the consumer would have, when his new car gives trouble within few days from purchase, the time and money spent by him on several occasions during these three years period from the date of purchase to the workshop it would be just and proper that the complainant be paid a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only).

12. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to extend the period of warrantee given at the time of purchase to another period of three years and provide free service to the vehicle through its authorized dealer, the SRMT at Visakhapatnam during this extended warrantee period and it is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complaint within 45 days from the date of this order and the complainant be paid costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Advocate fee is Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 3rd Day of December, 2009.

To Tata Motors/Land Mark Motors Ratlam (MP)/Consumer Court

Subject - Tota Motors Sumo Grande Starting, Mileage, Smoke Problems and sudden breakdown.
We have bought one Tata Sumo GrandE (GX 2.2 Dicor Diesel) in the name of (RATANLAL CHOUDHARY S/O RAMNARAYAN CHOUDHARY) on 31st March '2009'.

The car details is mentioned below
1. Tata Sumo Grand E GX 2.2 Dicor Diesel
2. Serial Number – 07FRZJ19794
3. Chassis Number -465012FRZ924100
4. Engine Number – 2.2LDICOR07FRZJ19794
5. Color – MARINEBLUE


Purchased from- Landmark Motors, Sailana Bus Stand, Ratlam (M.P.) Pin – 457001

The car was functioning okay for the initial 6 months and we were doing the car servicing on time and regularly. It has just run approx 9400 KM and starts giving the ignition problems. Initially problem was rare and then it becomes too frequent. We have intimated this problem to landmark motors and they have come up for check-up and then referred to sent it to Ratlam (which is approx 125 KM from my hometown). They picked up the car on 24th Oct 2009 and returned it on 13th November 09. It took almost more than 20 days in the repairing. After that the car again works better for around 45 days (however it was used very rarely due the fact that it may lend up us in mid way). Now, again on first week on Feb 10, it starts giving the same problem again. By this time, it has just run approx 10500 KM, It gives lot of problem in starting and it may stopped intermediately and many time sudden breakdown.

The main issue with the car is
1. Starting problem. Do not start even in 50 attempts
2. Intermediate stoppage/Sudden breakdown not reliable for Long journey (Had couple of very bad experiences)
3. The problems keeps on increasing on daily basis
4. Giving a lot of Smoke during driving
5. Very low mileage < 9 KM even on highway and without AC where company claims it be approx 15 KM.

Dealer is misguiding us and saying that Diesel used is of low quality and there is no issue in the car. In addition to this, the dealer is just returning the car by resetting the fuel pump. They are not rectifying the problems and just misguiding us. They always say that there is some dependency on Vendor for part/service and they are not available. This is causing more delay in service and hence they are not even giving us proper timelines for the service. We are suffering a lot and they are not even giving the proper problem and timelines needed in rectifying the issue. Moreover, this seems to be an issue in the engine itself. It seems like Tata Motors are selling defective pieces in the market. The service of the dealers is also pathetic. Every time we need to follow and listen to them and they are not listing to us. Now, we need to hire the car even for personal use. They are not giving us the clear picture and making us fool. Even they were not ready to give us the contact number of the owner of the showroom.

We are suffering a lot due to this. This has taken a lot of time, money and harassment. Now even we don’t relay on this DEFECTIVE piece as we had terrible experience in past and we have stuck in the mid way for whole night during our visit to Delhi and then have to return back.

We would like your kind intervention in this matter and like to replace this defective piece. Till time, we have lived up hoping that this will not be a big issue but might get rectified soon. Till date, we are under free service and warranty period still we have suffered a lot in terms of money and time. Every time we need to send car for servicing we need to bear around 1000 Rs as a fuel cost and 2-3 weeks time in service. Once, the warrantee period is over, dealer is going to charge us for every service even for this defective piece and we are not sure what could be the maintenance cost for this. Keeping all these in minds, we would to replace this car with a new one. We think this is totally a crap piece and have manufacture fault.
Hoping to get resolution soon on this issue.

Yours Faithfully
Ratanlal (13 Feb 2010)

Copy –
Tata Motors – The manufacturer
Landmark Motors – The dealer and Service Provider
Consumer Court

Case No.245/09
In the matter of :
Sh. Sant Ram,

R/o D-1/177, (New No.252-B),

Gali No.18, D-Block,

Dayal Pur, New Delhi-110094. …..Complainant

Versus
M/s. Tata Motors Limited,

Through its Director,

No.1, Gazipur, Patparganj,

New Delhi-110096. ……OP


O R D E R
U.C. TIWARI, PRESIDENT

According to the complainant, he has taken a loan of Rs.4,65,000/- from OP which was to be repaid in 47 EMIs and accordingly the complainant had purchased the TATA open body light goods truck bearing registration No. DL-1LG-3408 from OP. After availing of said loan facility, the complainant paid regular EMIs to the OP but due to financial crunch, the complainant could not deposit two/three EMIs within the prescribed period. However, the complainant even thereafter has been paying regular EMIs which are being paid and accepted by the OP. Despite the payment being made by the complainant at regular intervals to OP, in the month of December, 2008, some miscreants claiming themselves the representative of OP, started making phone calls and threatened the complainant to deposit entire balance loan amount. The complainant specifically informed the said representative that he has already made payments of all due EMIs except two/three installments and would clear the same at the earliest, but the said miscreants kept on calling and threatening the complainant. The complainant visited the office of the OP on 26.12.2008 and was shocked to find that the statement of account, not only contains the charges on account of late fees etc., but also it does not reflect payment made by the complainant from time to time. The complainant had shown his bank statement and cash receipts etc. issued by concerned official of OP and asked reason of discrepancy in his statement. The concerned official of OP asked the complainant to come again on 03.01.2009, in the meanwhile they would find out how the payment made by him are not depicting in the statement of account. Then the complainant visited the office of OP on 03.01.2009 but no satisfactory reply was given to him and again he visited the office of the OP on 18.01.2009 and informed the concerned official of the OP about the repeated calls made by said miscreants and requested to restrain them from making such calls to complainant but surprisingly no heed was paid by the said official to the request of complainant nor the statement of the account was checked by them. However, the official informed the complainant that some of the payments made by him have not been credited and on query it was informed that the said discrepancy will be sorted out in head office based at Mumbai. But officials of the OP continued to threatened the complainant. At last on 02.02.2009, the complainant visited the office of OP and requested the concerned official to issue the credit statement of account but the said representative informed that they have already sent the matter to their head office and refused to entertain the request of complainant. Surprisingly, on 11.02.2009 at around 9:30 A.M. when the said vehicle was near Village Khampur, Alipur Delhi, some miscreants of OP forcibly taken over the custody of said vehicle from the possession of complainant without assigning any reason or giving any notice etc. and when the complainant protested to the illegal and unwarranted acts and tarried to explain that the matter has already been referred to the head office, the said miscreants manhandled the complainant and snatched keys etc. of said vehicle and forcibly took away the said vehicle with them. The complainant immediately approached the office of OP and narrated whole incident of illegally and forcibly snatching of vehicle by miscreants of OP but the said representative instead of resolving the issue, started misbehaving and using very filthy language against complainant and further threatened him if he would not make the payment of Rs.83,000/- on account of re-possession, penalty, interest and other misc. charges, the OP would not release the said vehicle in his favour and would sell the same in market. Thus, the acts of OP are illegal and unlawful and the OP is liable to be prosecuted for deficiency in services and adopting dilatory tactics and mis-accounting, since the official of OP despite several requests, have neither resolved the disputes nor adjusted the payments made by complainant, rather preferred to adopt illegal ways of taking forcible possession of vehicle from the lawful custody of complainant. Thus, the complainant filed this present complaint against OP and claimed damages of Rs.one lac on account of deficient and defective services rendered by OP and also for mental pain, inconvenience, harassment and hardship etc. and also prayed for release of the vehicle in question. The complainant has also interim application to release the vehicle in question in his favour which was allowed for which the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- to the OP and vehicle in question had already been released in favour of the complainant. The deposit was made by the complainant on 08.06.2009 alongwith Rs.8775/- on account of parking charges allowed after hearing of the OP.



OP filed the written statement admitting that the complainant has obtained finance facility against the vehicle in question. However, it is denied that signatures of the complainant was obtained on blank documents. It is admitted that OP financed the vehicle to the tune of Rs.4,65,000/-. The finance amount of Rs.4,65,000/- was repayable with finance charges of Rs.89,280/- and the total amount payable by the complainant is Rs.5,54,280/-. The amounts deposited in cash and filed on record by the complainant also shows the deposits of Rs.6,000/-, Rs.8,000/-, Rs.10,000/- etc. whereas the agreed monthly installment was Rs11,790/- only. The occasion payments of Rs.20,000/- once in two or three months cannot be treated as regular payment. The complainant has been regularly being followed up by the employees and duly authorized representatives and when they demand the amounts due, they are termed as miscreants. The complainant has not filed on record the alleged bank statement which itself makes clear that these allegations are invented to mislead a judicial Forum. The complainant is making false allegations with an intention to mislead this Hon’ble Forum regarding threatening and vehicle has been taken into possession by OP for the continuous default. The vehicle was taken into possession peacefully, without any law and order problem. The other allegations are invented for misleading this Hon’ble Forum The prayer clause are wrong and denied. The complainant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the prayer clause in as much as the complainant is not a consumer and complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Forum in view of the various submissions. As such, the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

The complainant filed rejoinder and affidavit against the written statement filed by the OP. The OP have also filed his affidavit in evidence in support of his written statement alongwith certain documents. The complainant has also filed some receipts of payment of dues in favour of the OP. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and gone through the records carefully. The record shows that complainant has not given the exact figure of the amount which is paid by him to the OP. However, the complainant has not filed any statement of his bank account from where the money has been transferred in favour of the OP though the claim of the complainant that he has paid amount through bank. The receipt for payment of the dues in favour of the OP filed by the complainant is only upto Rs.2,08,327/-. Whereas as per statement of account of the OP, the complainant has paid Rs.3,49,536/- in favour of the OP. Besides this, the complainant has paid Rs.40,000/- to OP during the pendency of the case. Thus, the total payment made by complainant in favour of the OPs is Rs.3,89,536/-. However, the total amount to be paid by complainant in favour of the OP was Rs.5,54,280/- because the OP not entitled for any penal interest as well as late payment of dues etc. Therefore, only Rs.1,64,744/- is due in favour of the OP against the complainant. As such, the complainant is liable to pay this amount in favour of the OP and on payment of this amount, OP shall issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant.

We have discussed above, we direct the complainant to pay Rs.1,64,744/- in favour of the OP and on payment of this amount, the OP shall issue NOC in favour of the complainant. As per circumstances of the case, complainant is not entitled for any compensation or litigation etc.

C.C.No:52/2008

BETWEEN:

Lella Venkateswara Reddy,

S/o Late Venkata Subbareddy,

Agriculturist,

R/o Korisapadu (V) & (M),

Prakasam District.

... Complainant.

Vs.

1. M/s M.G. Brothers Automobiles-

Private Limited,

National Highway 5,

Throvagunta (V),

Ongole, Prakasam District.



2. M/s M.G. Brothers Automobiles-

Private Limited,

Opposite to Ayyappaswamy Temple,

Shop Nos.94 & 95,

Wood Complex,

Nellore – 524 004.



3. TaTa Motors Finance,

1st Floor, Akhil Plaza,

Opposite to Power Office,

Near Postal Colony,

Nellore – 524 001.



4. TaTa Motors Limited,

Teer Hath Nala,

Gyan Sudha College,

Service Road,

Thane, Maharastra State.

…Opposite parties.
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT : SRI K. RAGHAVA RAO,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES 3&4 : SRI B. SUBRAHMANYAM,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTEIS 1&2 : SRI M. RAGHAVENDHRA REDDY,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

This complaint is coming on 05.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER:

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.



2. The averments in the complaint are as follows:- Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the dealers of the opposite party no.4. The complainant purchased TATA709 Star 32 seater Bus bearing No. AP 27 W 7317 manufactured by opposite party No.4 through opposite party No.3 and dealers opposite parties 1 and 2 on 02.06.2007. The complainant plyed the vehicle and the rear wheel tyre of the vehicle was completely worn out after plying 5000 Kilo Metres as against 6000 Kilo Metres and the complainant has to replace three pairs of tyres within three months. The complainant lodged a complaint with opposite parties 1 to 3 and took the vehicle to Nellore and showed the same to opposite party No.2. The 2nd opposite party expressed their inability in the matter and the complainant has left with no option except stop plying the vehicle and kept the vehicle idle. The complainant was plying the vehicle for MSR Junior College, Pangulur on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. Due to stoppage of vehicle the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. Due to the loss the complainant could not pay the instalments due to the 3rd opposite party. It appears that due to the inherent technical flaw in manufacturer of the vehicle, the 2nd opposite party expressed his inability to rectify the same. In spite of repeated demands by the complainant and legal notice dated 05.12.2007 there is no response from the opposite parties. In these circumstances the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle and pay the compensation.



3. The 1st opposite party filed his counter and the 2nd opposite party filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party. In their counter opposite parties 1 and 2 are contending as follows: The allegation in the complaint that the rear wheel tyres of the vehicle was completely worn out after plying 5000 Kilo Metres as against the minimum run of 6000 kilo metres and the complainant has to replace 3 pairs of tyres with in three months is not correct. It is not due to manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The problem arose due to complainant’s acts as he intentionally and will fully increased the leaf springs as against the specifications of the company manufacturers. It is not recommended for increasing leaf springs. The complainant increased the leaf springs and tampered with vehicle unauthorizedly and the caused problem of wear and tear of tyres. As per the terms and conditions of warranty, warranty is limited to repairing or replacing free of charge in the opinion of the Company and warranty does not cover normal wear and tear of the parts of the vehicle. In the present case the complainant tampered leaf springs and increase 4 in number on rear both sides and 2 in number infront side and violated the conditions stipulated in the maintenance and the complainant himself is responsible for the wear and tear of the tyres. There are no manufacturing defects in the vehicle and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.



4. The 4th opposite party filed its counter and the 3rd opposite party filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 4th opposite party. In their counter opposite parties 3 and 4 are contending as follows:- There is no defect at the manufacturing level of the vehicle. Till date either the complainant or the opposite parties 1 and 2 never informed O.P.4 regarding the wear and tear of the tyres. Opposite parties 3 and 4 are not at all responsible in any manner to the allegations of the complainant. The allegations in the complaint that rear wheel tyres were worn out after plying 5000 Kilo Metres. There is no material placed before the forum that any warranty is given to the complainant that the said tyres would serve for 6000 Kms. The counter filed by the 1st opposite party clearly show that the rear both side leaf springs are increased each side four in number and also front both sides leaf springs are increased 2 in number. As per the specifications of the company leaf springs are not recommended for increase. But the complainant willfully and wantly increased the leaf springs and tampered with in an unauthorized manner. Increase in the leaf springs caused the problem and the complainant himself is responsible for the alleged wear and tear of the tyres. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed.



5. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Operator’s Service Book. Ex.A2 is the Reply notice of O.P.1 dated 14.12.2007. Ex.A3 is the Legal notice dated 05.02.2008 issued by O.P.3. Ex.A4 is the Reply notice with postal receipt of 4th opposite party dated 15.04.2003. Ex.A5 is the legal notice issued by O.P.3 dated 13.02.2008. Ex.A6 is the reply notice of 4th opposite party. Ex.A7 is the Xerox copy of demand notice by the TaTa Motor Finance, Guntur to the complainant. Ex.A8 is the legal notice of O.P.3 with postal receipt dated 10.01.2009. Ex.A9 is the Xerox copy of tax invoice no.5551 dated 15.08.2007 for Rs.10,500/- by Vijaya lakshmi Traders to complainant. Ex.A10 is the Xerox copy of tax invoice no.5551 dated 10.09.2007 for Rs.10,500/- by Vijaya lakshmi Traders to complainant. Ex.A11 is the legal notice to the opposite parties by the complainant dated 05.12.2007. Ex.A12 is the photos of the vehicle 10 in number.

6. On behalf of the opposite parties Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Ex.B1 is the photographs of the vehicle 5 in number. Ex.B2 is the reply letter to the complainant by 1st opposite party dated 08.10.2007. Ex.B3 is the Reply notice dated 14.12.2007 to the complainant by 3rd opposite party.



7. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the compliant?



8. The case of the complainant is that he purchased TATA709 Star 32 seater Bus bearing No.AP 27 W 7317 from the authorized dealers of 4th opposite party and run the same. With in the warranty period the rear wheel tyres of the vehicle were worn out completely after running 5000 k.m. as against minimum run of 6000 K.m. and he has to replace 3 pairs of tyres within three months. According to the complainant it was only due to the manufacturing defects in chassis and body of the vehicle and in spite of repeated requests by the complainant to the opposite parties did not rectify the defects nor replaced the vehicle with new one and it amounts to deficiency in service.



9. Opposite parties contended that there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle. According to the opposite parties the complainant un-authorizedly increased rear both sides leaf springs 4 in number on each side and front both sides increase leaf springs 2 in number and tampered with the vehicle violating the warranty conditions and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief.



10. It is well settled that manufacturing defects in the vehicle can be proved only by leading expert evidence. In the present case one Sri Varahaswamy was appointed as surveyor to inspect the vehicle in question with the assistance of the technical team and M.G. Brothers Automobile to find out whether there is any manufacturing defects with regard to the chassis. The surveyor inspected the vehicle in the presence of the complainant and the technical team of M.G. Brothers on 22.03.2009 and took external measurements of the vehicle. For taking internal measurements of chassis and body of the vehicle has to be dismantled. For that the technical team of MG Brothers wanted to remove the vehicle to their work shop. But the complainant insisted that it should be done at Guntur or Vijayawada. The proposal was not accepted by the opposite parties. Therefore the warrant could not be executed by the surveyor. The complainant independently got the vehicle measured by some private technical person from Vijayawada. But the report of the private technical person who inspected the vehicle is not filed. Thus in the present case there is no expert evidence to prove that there is manufacturing defects in the chassis and body of the vehicle. In the absence of such evidence there is no other go for the forum except to proceed on the material available on record.



11. Both the parties produced photographs of the vehicle. The photographs produced by the opposite parties marked as Ex.B1 clearly goes to show that the complainant has increased rear both sides leaf springs each side by 4 numbers and front both sides leaf springs increased each side by 2 numbers. In the operator’s service manual supplied by the manufacturer marked as Ex.A1 under the head “Do’s and Dont’s on Vehicle, it is specifically stated that it is recommended that no unauthorized modifications such as welding & drilling on chassis frame, cambering of axles, addition and recambering of spring leaves or changes on any other part to carry higher payload be carried out. This will not only adversely affect the performance of the vehicle but also result in premature failure of aggregates and warranty will become null & void.”



12. Under warranty conditions at page number 9 it is stated that “warranty will not be applicable if: The vehicle, has either been, tampered with in an unauthorized manner or its parts have been modified repaired or replaced by unauthorized persons or parts used in replacement are not genuine.”



13. The photos produced by the opposite parties show that in the present case vehicle has been tampered with in an unauthorized manner by increasing leaf springs both on rear side and front side violating the warranty conditions.



14. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that due to manufacturing defects in the chassis and the body of the vehicle within the warranty period, the complainant changed tyres three times and this clearly reveals that there were major defects in the vehicle. He further argued that opposite parties having experts in their command fail to produce expert evidence to show that because of increase in leaf springs the problem occurred. The burden is upon the opposite party to prove the same, but they fail to prove the same. Therefore the opposite parties are liable to replace the vehicle with new one.



15. In support of his arguments he relied up on the decision reported in 2008 (1) CPR 123 (NC) in which it was held that “In our view, non-production of tyre before the District Forum by respondent No.1 was not fatal as the report at page 28 was given by Shri Banerjee on inspection thereof. Tyre in question was within warranty period at the time the damage was caused. We are of the opinion that having raised the plea in written version that damage to the tyre was due to concussion it was for the petitioner to have proved this plea.”

16. I am of the opinion that when the complainant committed wrong and violated warranty conditions opposite parties can not be asked to prove that worn out of the tyres was not due to the un-authorized acts of tampering with the vehicle committed by the complainant. In the present case, the material on record show that the complainant violated warranty conditions by increasing leaf springs both on front side and rear side of the vehicle. It was done to carry higher pay load. Worn out of the tyres was due to unauthorized alterations done in the vehicle by increasing the number of leaf springs and not due to any manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Further the complainant fail to produce expert evidence to show that there are manufacturing defects in the chassis and body of the vehicle. Un-authorized increase of leaf springs is out of the purview of the warranty. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable to replace the vehicle with new one and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

17. In the result, petition is dismissed. In the circumstances with out costs.