Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/125/2019

Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Berkeley Tata Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Akashdeep Singh Adv. & Brij Inder Singh Adv.

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	125/2019
Date of Institution	:	11.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.04.2022

 

                     

            

 

Amritpal Singh s/o Sh.Gurcharan Singh r/o H.No.2691, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

….Complainants

VERSUS

1.  Berkeley Tata Motors, Showroom Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002, Workshop Plot No.40, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

2.  Berkeley Tata Motors, Dynamic Motors, A unit of RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office, Plot No.24, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002.

3.  Tata Motors Ltd., Teen Hath Naka, Gyan Sadhana College, Service Road, Thane-400604.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Brij Inder Singh, Adv. for the complainant
	Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2 Sh.Jasan Singh Sidhu, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Ivan Khosla, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  he purchased a SUV car model Tata Hexa XT from OP No.1 vide retail invoice dated 08.02.2017 and later on the vehicle was registered with the RTA, Chandigarh vide registration No.CH-01BL 2691.  It has further been averred that after 8 months of the purchase of the car, its front tyres busted/ruptured all of a sudden whilst driving the car and OP No.1 changed the busted tyres on pro rata basis on 10.10.2017. After sometime, he again faced a problem with the alloy wheel of the car as it was cracked and the air pressure started releasing from the tyre untimely, which was life-threatening for which he served a legal notice also and on receipt of the legal notice, the OPs changed the alloy wheel of the car.   He is facing the fret due to the manufacturing defect in the car as in November 2018, he purchased four new tyres from the market and astounded to see that the front tyres of the car again cropped/scratched by the alloy wheel rim and abrasions could be seen on the tyres.  He reported the matter to OP No.1 in the second week of January, 2019 but did not receive any justify answer.  However, an employee of the OPs at the workshop verbally told him that 19 inches alloy wheel rims and tyres which were fixed in the car were not compatible with it and suggested to purchase new 16 inches alloy wheel rims and tyres as the car is manufactured in a manner that could support 16 inches alloy wheel rims and tyres only and upon this, he stated that he had just purchased new tyres for Rs.49,600/- and the same could not be thrown away due to the mistake of the OPs.  Thereafter, the complainant asked the OPs to replace 19 inches alloy wheel rims and tyres or to only replace 19 inches alloy wheel rims and tyres to 16 inches alloy wheel rims and to compensate him but OP No.1 delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and asked him to come after a week. It has further been averred that he had suffered huge financial loss and mental and physical agony due to the deficiency in service of the OPs due to non-replacement of the alloy wheel rims and tyres of the car without any justifiable cause. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2 have stated that the vehicle is not having any defect much less inherent manufacturing defect as such the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the alloy wheel rims or to pay the cost of tyres.  It has further been stated that the perusal of the details/reasons of visits given in para 3 of the preliminary objections shows that he had approached with complaint of tyres cut and rim crack and the same was due to external impact which damages were not covered under the warranty of the vehicle, yet they had gone out of way and purely as a goodwill gesture replaced the tyre and rim on 26.03.2018 and thereafter no such problem was reported on any of the subsequent visits.  It has further been submitted that most of the visits of the complainant were on campaign shows that he had no defect in the vehicle and he had come only because the OPs had requested to get his vehicle checked for free under campaign. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     In its separate written statement, OP No.3 has stated that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has further been stated that the complainant is making allegation of fitment of tyres of 16 inches instead of 19" inches. As per records, the complainant reported the problem of wheel alignment and wheel bent. However, he did not bother to mention that the vehicle met with accident in December 2017 for accidental repairs, whereby the wheel rim was bent. It has further stated that the vehicle in question was firstly brought on 21.02.2017 for brake grabbing and engine lights come on. Subsequently, the vehicle was brought on 20.03.2017, with squeaking noise from front wheel, weather strips finish poor and dash board rattling. After necessary repairs, the vehicle was handed over to the Complainant. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought on 03.05.2017 for availing First Free Service and at that time, the complainant did not report any complaint. Thereafter, the vehicle was brought on 15.12.2017 for availing schedule service and wheel alignment. Again, the vehicle was brought for accidental repairs, in which the wheel rim was cracked, which is not a manufacturing defect. It has further been stated that the complainant is trying out to make out a false case to gain illegal and undue benefits. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record as well as written arguments of OP No.3.

 

5.     From the pleadings of the complaint and the documentary evidence on file, it is evident that the complainant has filed the instant complaint in question by alleging inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle and sought directions to the OPs to replace the alloy wheel rims  and tyres of the car and to compensate him with an amount of Rs.49,600/- i.e. cost of the tyres purchased by him and to pay the compensation to the tune of amount equivalent to the purchase of new 16 inches allow wheel rims and tyres i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- besides compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

6.     The case of the OPs is that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the rims/tyres of the vehicle in question as alleged by the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

7.      The perusal of the entire visits of the complainant made to the premises of OPs as reproduced in para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed by OPs No.1 and 2 clearly reveals that the complainant never complained regarding the defect in the tyres/rims of the vehicle till 15.12.2017. On 18.12.2017, the complainant had complained regarding the tyre cut and rim crack, however, the same was found to be on account of external impact as the vehicle in question met with an accident and the damage due to external factors was not covered under the warranty terms. It is further evident that on one occasion i.e. 26.03.2018, the Company had replaced the defective tyres and rims of the vehicle in question with a new one as a goodwill gesture and subsequently, no report regarding the defect in the tyres and rims were reported by the complainant till 09.02.2019.  Moreover, the complainant had also got the vehicle checked free of costs under the campaign launched by the OPs and during this period he never reported any defect in the tyres and rims.
8.     The complainant has also preferred not to file any rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs to rebut their pleadings/contentions despite availing opportunities for the same. The complainant has also failed to led any expert evidence by way of the affidavit to prove the fact that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the wheels/rims of the vehicle in question and that the tyres/whims of 19 inches fitted by the Company are not compatible to the vehicle in question.  Thus, the complaint of the complainant is bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 22/04/2022
	Sd/- (PRITI MALHOTRA) PRESIDING MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(S.K.SARDANA) MEMBER