DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  11^th  day of  October, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 03/06/2022  

                         CC/99/2022

Harikumar S.,

S/o. Shanmughan,

27/838, “Aiswarya”,

West Yakkara, Ambalappuram,

Near Malabar Hospital, Palakkad – 678 001.                        -                       Complainant

                             (By Adv. K.K. Jaidip)

                                                                                                Vs

1. KVR Automotive Pvt.Ltd.,

          Koppam Junction,

          Calicut Bypass Road, Palakkad – 678 001.

2. Tata Motors Ltd.,

Regd. Office : Bombay House,

24, Homi Modi Street, Hutatma Chowk,

Fort Mumbai,  Maharashtra – 400 001.                        -                    Opposite parties 

(OP1  by Adv. M/s B. Kamal Chand & K. Divya

OP2  by Adv. M/s V. Krishna Menon, Sulfikker Ali,

Prinsun Philip B. & Sudheshna Banerjee)                                          

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. O.P.1 is a dealer of cars manufactured by the 2^nd O.P.
2. The sole complainant of the complainant is with regard to the ‘irregular door gaps’ allegedly wide enough to let insects and snakes enter the car manufactured by the 2^nd O.P., purchased from the 1^st O.P.
3. 1^st OP filed version denying the complaint pleadings stating that they had carried out inspections but could find any gaps as stated by the complainant.  Even though they tried hard to allay the fears of the complainant, they failed to convince the complainant.
4. Opposite party No.2 also filed versions in the same lines as that filed by the first OP.
5.  Pleadings and counter pleadings considered, the following issues were framed by this Commission:

            1.         Whether the complainant has succeeded in proving the manufacturing defect in the vehicle?

            2.         Whether there is any deficiency in service / manufacturing defect on the part of             the O.P.s?

            3.         Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            4.         Reliefs, if any?

6. (i)     Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A3.    Commission report and documents forming part of the Commissioner’s Report filed by the Expert Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 series. There was no objection in marking the documents.      

   (ii)                Opposite parties filed proof affidavits. No documents were marked on their part.

Issue Nos. 1 & 2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

7.         In order to substantiate his pleadings that the door of the car of the complainant suffers from irregular door gap wide enough to let in insects and snakes, the complainant took out an Expert Commissioner whose report was marked as Exts.C1(a) to C1(c). Ext.C1 is a memo filed before this Commission intimating inspection and filing of Ext.C1(b) report.  Ext.C1(c) is a schedule of measurement taken on 4/1/2023 with regard to the gap between the complainant’s car and another car of the same model and variant. A perusal of Ext.C1(c) shows that there exists gap between the door and body of the car. The complainant had taken 21 values in the  four doors and the front bonnet and rear spoiler.  In all these readings, the expert could find substantial variation in the gaps in the complainant’s car. Pursuant to the readings in Ext.C1(c) the Expert Commissioner has reported that the complaint of the complainant herein was found to exist. 

8.         The first OP has filed an objection to Ext.C1 report. The 2^nd OP does not have any objection to the finding of the Commissioner. Even though OP1 has filed an objection they did not have any objection in marking of the said documents. None of the OPs had taken any steps to get the Expert Commissioner examined to derail his findings.  Hence Ext.C1 report stands proved conclusively.

9.         Resultantly, we hold that complainant’s car suffers from manufacturing defect.  

                        Issue Nos.3&4

10.       Reliefs sought for by the complainant are for rectification of the issues in the car or for refund of Rs.9,74,572/-, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and  for other incidental reliefs.

11.       Considering the fact that the manufacturing defect is with regard to the doors and not the engine hampering the functioning of the car, we feel an outright order directing refund will not be justified. Therefore we hold as follows taking into consideration the gravity of the situation whereby the complainant is made to ride his car with doors having gaps.          

12.       Resultantly, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:

            1)         The 1^st opposite party shall rectify the defect of the car’s doors to the                                satisfaction of the complainant within 60 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

            2)         In the event the 1^st O.P. is not able to rectify the defect and close the gaps, the                 1^st and 2^nd OPs shall jointly and severally be liable to pay an amount of                                   Rs.9,74,211/- being the cost of the car together with interest @10% from the                      date of purchase till the date of repayment.   

            3)         The opposite parties shall be at liberty to opt for the 2^nd relief instead of                                       resorting to the first relief.

            4)         The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation.

            5)         The O.P.s shall pay an amount of Rs. 25, 000/- as cost of these proceedings.          6)         The Opposite parties shall comply with the aforesaid directions within a period                       of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the                        opposite parties shall pay a solatium of Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof from                      the date of this order till date of payment of the entire amounts as stated                  above.  

            7)         Initially the 1^st OP shall pay the amounts stated in directions 2, 4, 5 and 6 to the               complainant and the 1^st O.P. may avail reimbursement of 50% of this amount                   from the 2^nd O.P. in the course of their routine business. 

                         Pronounced in open court on this the  11^th  day of October,  2023.

                                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President

       Sd/-                      Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of final settlement  dated  28/12/2021

Ext.A2 –  Copy of tax invoice

Ext.A3 (a to d) – Series of emails  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:    Nil

Court Exhibit: 

Ext.C1 (a to c)  – Commission report and Schedule forming part of Commission report     

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.