Karnataka

StateCommission

A/574/2014

The General Manager, TATA Motors - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.D. Bopaiah, S/o. H.K. Devaiah - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Benedict Anand

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

PRESENT

 

SRI. RAVI SHANKAR                         : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI              : MEMBER

 

Appeal No. 574/2014

 

The General Manager TATA Motors Head Quarters House, No.24 Homi Modi Road, Mumbai 400001   The General Manager TATA Motors Co. Ltd. Manufacturers of TATA Indigo Manza Pune 411 033   The Manager Car Service Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. Authorised dealers of TATA Motors Pvt. Ltd. CH-11, New Kantharaj Urs Road Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore (By Sri. Benedict Anand) V/s	….Appellant
H.D. Bopaiah S/o. H.K. Devaiah Ambakali Estate Gonikoppa, Coorg – 571216   (By Sri. K.S. Rahul Cariappa)	..…Respondent

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The OP preferred this appeal against the order dated 22.02.2014 passed in C.C.No. 161/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore which directed them to replace defective car or in the alternative to refund amount paid towards purchase of the car with interest at the rate of 12% and also directed them to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant has purchased one TATA Indigo Manza car from OP No. 1 on 25.12.2010 bearing registration No.KA 12 P-808 for his personal use.  As soon as complainant purchased the vehicle complainant noticed some defects such as emission of heavy smoke, low horse power, low pickup, mileage is only 5 kms. per liter and also noticed defect in the AC.  Immediately, he gave complaint to OP No.1 for which OP No.1 repaired.  Even inspite of continuous repairs, the said problems were not removed.  Hence, alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and alleged unfair trade practice in selling defective vehicle to the complainant and filed complaint before the District Commission.  After appearance, OP took contention that there is no any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The said vehicle was repaired and provided service as and when complainant tendered it for service.  On 06.07.2011, 14.07.2011, 20.07.2011, 29.09.2011, 13.10.2011 and 08.12.2011 the complainant brought the said vehicle for repair and as per the complaints this OP repaired and some spare parts were also replaced.  The complainant also took the vehicle with full satisfaction.  There is no manufacturing defect.  The allegation with respect to the heavy smoke, low mileage and low pickup are not inherent manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  The condition of the vehicle all depends upon the driving mood of the driver and it is also noticed that complainant used the vehicle in hill station and vehicle is diesel fuel vehicle which emits normal smoke.  There is no heavy emission of smoke and usually diesel vehicle emit more smoke, does not have more initial pickup against normal pickup.  Even the AC was also rectified.  Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint. 
3. After trial the District Commission allowed the complaint directing this OP to replace the said vehicle with a new one and in the alternative directed to refund the amount paid toward purchase of vehicle, against which appellant is before this Commission and submits that there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle.  Complaints like noise, smoke and mileage depend on various factors like road condition, quality of fuel used, condition of tyres, load in the vehicle, use of AC and also the person who is driving the vehicle.  The District Commission without considering the said factors has allowed the complaint though there is no manufacturing defect and further submits that the complainant has used the vehicle and plied up to 16,365 kms. in 15 months after purchase i.e., averaging about 1200 kms. per month and there may be chances of emission of smoke.  The vehicle was repaired as and when complainant tendered for service.  There is no manufacturing defect.  Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission by dismissing the complaint.
4. Heard from both sides.  On going through the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and documents produced before this Commission there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased vehicle TATA Indigo Manzo from OPs which was registered as KA 18 P 808 in favour of complainant.  It is also not in dispute that complainant brought the vehicle for repairs alleging heavy smoke, low mileage, low pickup and low horse power, against which the OPs have repaired and produced job card to show that they have repaired satisfactorily.  We noticed here that during the course of trial before District Commission the complainant made an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to inspect the vehicle and to notice manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The Court Commissioner has submitted his report on 22.09.2012 giving opinion that there is no any manufacturing defect after test drive on the road.  When the Court Commissioner after inspection has given an opinion that there is no manufacturing defect the District Commission ought to have accepted the Court Commissioner report, but, instead of that merely basing on the allegations made by complainant, allowed the complaint and directed OPs to replace the vehicle.  Here we noticed that the complainant only alleges low mileage, heavy smoke emission and also initial pickup of the vehicle.  The said complaints are not considered as manufacturing defect as highlighted by Learned Advocate for appellant.  The condition of the vehicle depends upon the person who drives, condition of road he drives, condition of the tyres, load on the vehicle etc.  We noticed that the complainant was using the vehicle in hilly side of Coorg.  One cannot expect extra performance from the vehicle which was driven in the roads of the Coorg side.  The Court Commissioner has given clear opinion that there is no manufacturing defect found in the vehicle.  Apart from that the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence / expert opinion with respect to manufacturing defects as alleged.  In the absence of such evidence, the District Commission had allowed the complaint which lacks legality.  Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the complaint is dismissed as there is no manufacturing defect.
5. Amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

 

MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

CV*