Present :       Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                            Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                            Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member

30^th day of November 2022

CC 798/15  filed on 16/11/15

Complainant            :           Shamsudheen.A.I, S/o Ibrahim, Ambalathu

                                                Veettil House,P.O.Pavaratty, Thrissur

                                                (By Adv. Harish.A.N, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties     :1.       General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd, 14^th Floor,

                                                Canberra Block, U.B.City 24, Vital Mally Road,

                                                Bengaluru- 560 001, Rep.by Manager.

                                                (By Adv.George Kollannur, Thrissur)

2.        Manager, Archana Motors Pvt Ltd, NH 47,

           Paliyekkara, Chittissery.P.O, Thrissur- 680 301.

           (By Adv. Geofy George)  

O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

            The petitioner has purchased a stage carriage passenger vehicle of Tata Motors Limited 1512 C model, bearing Registration Number KL-46-K-300, Chases No. MATUI 2032 EO A00331 and Engine No.31 M 84140096 respectively, from 2^nd respondent firm, Thrissur. The 2^nd opposite party firm is one of the authorised dealer of 1^st opposite party firm. The date of purchase was on 04/03/2014. Periodical checkup and maintenance of the vehicle has been done properly. Unusual and abnormal wear and tear happening on the tyres and frequent brake jam were there and same was due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. These complaints were reported to 2^nd opposite party firm at  Thrissur,. Petitioner enquired the reason for complaint and the opposite parties replied that it may be occurred due to the problem of Spindal or alignment. Petitioner facing huge financial loss and a lot of problems, day by day in consequences of frequent defect of the vehicle. All these complaints were occurred even after proper service and all of these complaints are due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. Petitioner has issued a lawyer notice, intimating the defects of the vehicle and also demanding the compensation on 15/12/14. The opposite parties were not even cared to send a proper reply. The petitioner bonafidely believes and having sufficient information from the experts that, the complaints are due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and he is entitled to get compensation towards the defect of product. Hence this complaint.

2) Version by 1^st Opposite Party

On receiving complaint notice was properly issued to the opposite parties. The counsel for the 1^st opposite party appeared before the Commission and filed  version. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows : The complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term ‘Consumer’ . Admittedly, the complainant is using the vehicle for his bus service by engaging employees. The said vehicle in question has been extensively used by the complainant for commercial activities. The complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator’s service book. The service history clearly show that the complainant failed to maintain the vehicle as per the recommended schedule. The vehicle in question failed to report for the mandatory 2^nd free service to the service station which attracts cessation of warranty. Apart from missing the 2^nd free service, the complainant has carried out the 3^rd, 4^th & 5^th free service after the prescribed kilometer Interval. The said vehicle was delivered after carrying out pre-delivery inspection. The complainant has filed this baseless complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion/ documentary proof. The complainant has purchased the vehicle on or around 08/03/14 from the opposite party’s dealer and the said vehicle in question till 27/01/16  had covered around 1,37,890 Kms. The vehicle was reported on or around 21/05/14 at 3171 kms. With the issues of noise while applying brake, axle shaft oil check, tappet noisy check and loss of brake and it was resolved by wheel rim removal and fitment on paid basis, riveting front wheel brake liner and tappet adjustment was done under warranty.

Subsequently, the vehicle was reported on or around 11/06/14 at 5018Kms, with the complaint in brake system and it was addressed satisfactorily. The vehicle was reported on or around 02/07/14 at 11227 Kms. With the problems of king pin bush defective, insufficient brake, rear axle shaft broken and door glass operation defect and it was attended . Later, the vehicle reported with the complaint of gear shifting and the allege complaint was redressed. Issues of front both tyres excessive wearing, low average fuel consumption and less brake and it was attended. The issue of less break, the complaint of excessive smoke, starting problem and brake grabbing, the problem of break down and steering wheel vibration, complaint of dual brake valve and defect in air tank, issues of excessive tyre wear etc were properly attended. Complaint of starting trouble , issue of engine overheating, belt tensioner were also attended. Upon receipt of the legal notice, the vehicle was attended by the executives of the opposite party no.2 and the problems were resolved satisfactorily. Hence prayed for a dismissal.

             3)Points for consideration are ?

                        a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite

                            parties or not ?

                        b) Reliefs and costs ?

            4) The counsel for complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The produced document was marked as Ext. P1 to P6. Ext.P1 is the inventory checklist; Ext.P2 is the tax invoice dated 09/05/2015; Ext.P3 is the inventory checklist dated 18/06/15; Ext.P4 is the lawyer notice dated 15/12/14; Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card dated 17/12/14 and Ext.P6 is the reply notice.

            6) Point No. 1 & 2:

                        The case of the complainant is that he purchased stage carriage passenger vehicle from the 1^st opposite party, manufacturer and produced before 2^nd opposite party authorised service centre. The vehicle met with series of defects to front tyres, break etc and it was produced for service before the 2^nd opposite party. After repeated service, the 2^nd opposite party could not fix the  issues since the vehicle has manufacturing defects. Ext.P1, P2, P3 proves the services done to the vehicle. Both the opposite parties admit the purchase of vehicle and respective defects and service rendered there on. They contend that there was failure to carry out timely mandatory services causing damage to the vehicle and breaking of warranty conditions. The vehicle extensively used without proper care and caution caused damages. The vehicle purchased on 08/03/14and service record till 27/01/16 shows playing of this vehicle around 1,37,890 Kms.

                        Stating the deficiency of service complainant issued Ext.P4 lawyer notice and it has been replied through Ext.P6 reply notice. Now the gist of the dispute confined to manufacturing defect of various vital part of the vehicle. Opposite parties contend that the allegation of manufacturing defect need to be proved through expert evidence. in fact the complainant preferred IA 749/16 to appoint an expert engineer and same was allowed on 24/11/16 appointing Dr.P.P.Lalu, Asst. Professor, Department of Engineering, Govt. Engineering College, Thrissur and same posted to take steps by the petitioner. Complainant failed to take appropriate steps, and the petition stands dismissed on 03/05/17 finding “no steps taken so far. Hence IA stands dismissed on default”. It is a settled position of law that the manufacturing defect of goods need to specifically pleaded and proved through experts evidence. The failure to adduce expert evidence turned to be fatal to this case. Since entire case relies on the issue of manufacturing defect, we find that the complainant failed to establish a cogent case.

            In the result complaint dismissed without cost.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th day of November 2022.

Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

Sreeja S                                             Ram Mohan R                                 C.T. Sabu

Member                                            Member                                            President

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext.P1 is the inventory checklist.

Ext.P2 is the tax invoice dated 09/05/2015.

Ext.P3 is the inventory checklist dated 18/06/15.

Ext.P4 is the lawyer notice dated 15/12/14.

Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment card dated 17/12/14.

Ext.P6 is the reply notice.

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Nil

                                                                                                                        Id/-

Member