Haryana

Karnal

CC/764/2019

Dr. Nupur Kamboj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tata Motors Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Goel

27 Sep 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 764 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.15.11.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:27.09.2022

 

Dr. Nupur Kamboj, wife of Dr. Arvind Kumar, resident of ward no.9, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal-132041, Haryana.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     M/s TATA Motors Limited through Managing Director having its Registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Moddy Street, Mumbai-400001 Maharashtra.

2.     M/s Metro Motors Private Limited through Managing Director having registered office at 106, Railway road, Ambala Cantt. Ambala Haryana-133001.

3.     M/s Metro Motors Private Limited through its Branch Manager.

        112/60 Milestone, near Arpana Hospital, G.T. Road, village Kutial Karnal, Haryana-132037.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before:  Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vishal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Deepak Tuteja, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Rajesh Gupta, counsel for OPs no.2 and 3.

  

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is a leading Manufacturer of Motor Cars having presence all over the world. OP no.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 company. OP no.3 is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors Cars at Karnal. The complainant has purchased a brand new TATA Tiago XZA Car on 20.03.2019 from the OP no.3 and the same is registered vide registration no.HR-75-C-4475 with the Registration Authority Indri. On the very next day of purchased of the said car, after running about 150 kilometers, complainant faced problem of dashboard noise and the Air Conditioning System was not working. As such on 22.03.2019, the complainant took the car to the service centre of the OP no.2, where the job car of the car was opened and the service staff of OP no.2 after taking sometime told the complainant that the problem in the car had been resolved. However, on 24.03.2019 complainant again faced same problem and on 27.03.2019 again the car was taken to service centre of the OP no.2. After three days the same problem was occurred and complainant again took her car to the service centre on 05.04.2019 with the problem of dashboard noise and defect in the air conditioning system. The service centre of the OPs again delivered the car to the complainant by saying that the dashboard noise is resolved but evaporator of air conditioning system was not working and the part is not available. The car was delivered to the complainant with the assurance that the part will be changed when it will came and OPs will informed the complainant about the same. On 06.04.2019, the dashboard noise was same and complainant again took the car in the service centre. Thereafter on 14.04.2019, complainant received a call from the OP no.2 and she was informed that the said part is available now, as such the car was taken to the service centre of OP no.2. The car was delivered by the service centre to the complainant on 19.04.2019 by saying that problem in the car is completely resolved now. On 19.04.2019 the reading of car at night was 1785 KMs but after running about 120 KM the complainant again faced same problem in the car i.e. dashboard noise and air conditioner system not working. On 23.04.2019 the complainant again lodged a complaint with customer care number and it is the third online complaint. The complaints lodged by the complainant are with bearing nos.1-94760678081 on 03.04.2019, 1-953309259981 on 16.04.2019 and 1-95606044301 on 23.04.2019. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.04.2019 to the OPs vide which she requested the OPs to replace the car with new one or in the alternative refund the complete purchase amount of the car i.e.Rs.6,05,000/- within 15 days and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The said notice was received by the OPs but nothing was done on their part. On 24.04.2019, the car was taken to service centre for the problem of air conditioning system. Again the service centre staff kept the car and delivered it after 3 days of running of approximately 400 KMs and delivered to the complainant by saying that now it is ok but after some days the same problem occurred and complainant took the car to service centre and saying that they have changed the rubber warshels in dashboard and delivered the car in the evening to the driver of complainant. At the time of delivery of the car the driver of complainant noticed a dent in the car at driver side on fender lining of rear wheel. On 13.06.2019 again the car was taken to OP no.2 having problem of dashboard noise, dent and scratch on the car of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP no.2 to show the inspection form filled on 08.06.2019 so that it can be confirmed whether the dent was there earlier to the service or it was due to service staff of OP no.2. On going through the inspection form it was observed that at the time of inspection there was no dent and scratch on the vehicle at the time of inspection and it was admitted by service staff of OP no.2 that dent in the car was caused in their workshop. The noise of dashboard was also noticed by GM Service while test driving the car. On 15.06.2019 when the car was delivered to the complainant it was found that to resolved the problem of dashboard noise too much foam was filled in the dashboard and in the front windshield and the foam is clearly visible from driver seat. The dashboard of the complainant has multiple scratches as it was opened multiple times. Till today the problem of dashboard noise has not been resolved. Several emails have been sent by the complainant to the OPs about the problem of the car but no positive response has been received from the OPs. Even the OPS refused. It is further averred that it is the OP no.2 and its service staff who drove the car in question upto 3000KMs. Again on 17.09.2019 morning, complainant faced the same problem of air conditioning system not working and hence called Mr. Sanjay Mehta, regional service head and Mr. Gurnam Singh, electrician in Karnal Tata Metro Motors. The said Mr. Sanjay Mehta told the complainant to take the car to Yamuna Nagar as it was nearby to the complainant at that time and to get the check up there and again some parts were changed and service was done. It is further averred that since the purchase of new car on 20.03.2019 the complainant has made multiple visits to the authorized service centre of Tata Motors with the same problems i.e. noise in dashboard and non-functioning of air conditioner, which remains unresolved till date. The car purchased by the complainant has inherent manufacturing defects which could not be resolved by the authorized service centre of Tata motors despite multiple attempts to do the same. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking directions to the OPs to replace the car in question with new one or to get refund the cost of the car i.e. Rs.6,05,000/-, to pay Rs.  on account of mental agony, torture, harassment and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had two minor problems i.e. air conditioner cooling insufficient and sound from dash board. The complainant had brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP no.2 on 27.03.2019, 06.04.2019 and 15.04.2019 with the complaint of AC cooling insufficient. Since the complaint was repeated one, therefore OP alongwith team of air conditioner manufacturer namely Gulab Singh, Mr. Mahle and Praveen Saini took the vehicle for a detailed road test on 25.04.2019 and 26.04.2019 and had driven the vehicle under different conditions from high to low and from low to high ambient test i.e. travelling around 265 Kms and a joint investigation report was also filed wherein it was observed that air conditioner working as per design guidelines and pressures were measured……. It is further pleaded that the said complaint as not repeated thereafter. Thus, grievance of the complainant was fully met and complainant was satisfied. The complainant has also complaint two times for rattling sound from dashboard on 06.04.2019 and 25.04.2019 and brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP no.2 and in order to satisfy the complainant, the complete dash board was replaced on 25.09.2019 and thus the said grievance also duly taken care. It is further pleaded that complainant has nowhere alleged any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question nor pleaded any fact, which can constitute deficiency in product against the OP. Since, both the essentials ingredient of the consumer complaint are missing against the OP. It is further pleaded that relationship between the OPs no.1 and 2 was on principal to principal basis. Meaning, thereby, that after the sale of the vehicle to dealer on receipt of consideration, the OP is left with no control, whatsoever, in respect of the vehicle in question sold. Therefore, even otherwise the OP is not a necessary party and the name of the OP be deleted from the array of the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.2 and 3 filed their separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability for want of territorial jurisdiction because the vehicle was purchased from the OP no.2 at Ambala Cantt and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle was properly attended as and when, it was received for any kind of repair and delivered, thereafter, leaving behind no complaint. The problem of dashboard noise and in air conditioning system, the same was set-right because there was some adjustment was required and the same was got done, hence the complainant has no cause of action, but even if the complainant has any grievance in the car in question then she may visit in the workshop either at Ambala or at Karnal. Although she was called by the Works Manager just, immediately after the receipt of the court notice, but the complainant has miserably failed to attend the workshop alongwith the car in question. It is further pleaded that OPs are service provider at the instance of OP no.1, hence no liability can be fastened, as the OPs are working as per terms and conditions of the warranty clause. It is further pleaded that there was no problem in the car in question, rather it had occurred due to mishandling of the car in question, so the case be disposed off accordingly, but time and again it is suggested that if there is any problem in the car in question, then he may visit alongwith car for getting the needful done, so that there may not be any problem in the car in question. Since there was no any problem in the air conditioning or dashboard in the car, so the claiming compensation on the basis of misrepresentation of facts does not arise at all. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of temporary RC Ex.C1, copy of service history Ex.C2, copy of job card Ex.C3, copy of tax invoice dated 17.09.2019 Ex.C4, copy of tax invoice dated 25.09.2019 Ex.C5, copy of emails dated 25.04.2019, 26.04.2019 an 04.05.2019 Ex.C6 to Ex.C11, postal receipts Ex.C12 to C14, copy of legal notice Ex.C15, copy of track consignments Ex.C16 to Ex.C18, copy of invoice dated 20.03.2019 Ex.C19 and closed the evidence on 14.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.              Learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sharmendra Chaudhary Ex.RW/A and closed the evidence on 27.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that OPs no.2 and 3 have failed to lead any evidence, after availing several opportunities including four last opportunities. The evidence of OPs was closed by court order of this Commission on 07.07.2022.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel of complainant, while reiterating the contents of complainant, has vehemently argued that on 20.03.2019 complainant has purchased the car in question from the OP no.2. On the very next day of purchasing of the said car and after running about 150 kilometers, complainant faced problem of dashboard noise and non-working of Air Conditioning System.  As such on 22.03.2019, the complainant took the car to the service centre of the OP no.2 and the service staff of OP no.2 after taking sometime told the complainant that the problem in the car was resolved. However, on 24.03.2019 complainant again faced same problem and on 27.03.2019 again the car was taken to service centre of the OP no.2. After three days the same problem was occurred and complainant again took her car to the service centre on 05.04.2019 with the problem of dashboard noise and defect in the air conditioning system. The OP delivered the car to the complainant after repair. But on 06.04.2019, the dashboard noise remained the same and complainant again took the car in the service centre. The car was again delivered by the service centre to the complainant after a gap of 12 days on 19.04.2019 by saying that problem in the car is completely resolved now.  But on 23.04.2019 the complainant had to lodge a complaint with customer care number with the regard to the same defect. On 24.04.2019, the car was taken to service centre for the problem of air conditioning system. Again the service centre staff kept the car and delivered it after 3 days of running of approximately 400 KMs. On 13.06.2019 again the car was taken to OP no.2 having problem of dashboard noise, dent and scratch on the car of the complainant. On 15.06.2019 when the was delivered to the complainant it was found that for resolving the problem of dashboard noise, too much foam was filled in the dashboard. Furthermore, the dashboard of the complainant has multiple scratches as it was opened multiple times. Till today the problem of dashboard noise has not been resolved. Since the purchase of new car, the complainant has made multiple visits to the authorized service centre of Tata Motors with the same problems, which remains unresolved till date even after replacing the dashboard on 25.09.2019. He further argued that the complainant is a reputed female medical practioner and was running clinic at Yamuna Nagar and now she is a Government Employee working as C.H.O. Community Centre village Khera District Karnal. Being a lady doctor, it was/is not possible to make visit for the same problem which she has already made several times and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant had two minor problems i.e. air conditioner cooling insufficient and sound from dash board. The complainant had brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP no.2 on 27.03.2019, 06.04.2019 and 15.04.2019 with the complaint of AC cooling insufficient. The problem of AC was resolved and air conditioner working as per design guidelines. The complainant has also complaint two times for rattling sound from dashboard on 06.04.2019 and 25.04.2019 and brought the vehicle to the workshop of OP no.2 and in order to satisfy the complainant, the whole dash board was replaced on 25.09.2019 and thus the said grievance has also been duly taken care. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.                   Learned counsel for OPs no.2 and 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that problem of dashboard noise and in air conditioning system, the same was set-right because there some adjustment was required and the same had been done. There was no problem in the car in question. If there exists any problem in the car in question, then she may visit alongwith car for getting the needful done and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           Admittedly On 20.03.2019, complainant has purchased a Tata Tiago XZA Car from OP No. 3. It is also admitted that from the very beginning, the vehicle in question was having two problems i.e. air conditioner cooling and second noise from the dashboard of the vehicle.  

13.            OP no.1 has admitted the various visits of the complainant to the showroom of OP no.2 and 3 with the complaint of dashboard noise and air conditioning system but per contra OPs no.2 and 3 being authorized dealer of OP no.1, have stated in their written version that there was some adjustment required in the dashboard and air conditioner system and same was got done and after that there remained no problem in vehicle of the complainant

14.           It is evident from the service history of the car Ex.C2, on dated 22.03.2019, 27.03.2019, 05.04.2019 and 06.04.2019, the vehicle was taken to the showroom of the OPs with the problem of the dashboard noise and air conditioner. It is also evident from the job card Ex.C3 dated 15.04.2019, OPs have replaced the air conditioner Idler. It is also evident from the tax invoice Ex C5 dated 25.09.2019 that the dashboard of the vehicle has been replaced by the OPs. It is also evident from the gmail Ex.C6 to Ex.C11, complainant approached the OPs with regard to the problem of the vehicle and OP no.3 have tried to resolve the same problem but the problem could not be resolved. OP’s have not denied from the above said problems in the vehicle and brought the vehicle in their showroom on 22.03.2019, 24.03.2019, 27.03.2019, 06.04.2019, 15.04.2019, 25.04.2019, 26.04.2019 and 25.09.2019.

15.           Very surprisingly, complainant has made several visits to the OPs in regard to said problems but OPs casually stated in their written version that there was only requirement of adjustment and problems were sought of on adjustment. If the problems were to be solved only after making the adjustment then as to why OPs have changed the part of AC and entire dashboard. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has no force. It has been proved from the above replacements that the dashboard and the AC system were having inherent manufacturing defect from the very beginning. The complainant is reputed medical practioner and was running clinic at District Yamuna Nagar and now she is Government Employee working as C.H.O. Community Centre village Khera, District Karnal. Being a lady doctor and considering profession of complainant, it was/is not possible to make visit for the same problems which she has already made several visits. OPs no.2 and 3 have filed the written version in the very casual way and also contrary to OP no.1 (manufacturer of vehicle). But both the OPs failed to hear the genuine request of complainant. The complainant is residing at Town Indri, District Karnal. Distance between Indri to showroom of OP no.2 is at about 68 Kms and OP no.3 is at about 35 kms. It is very difficult to make visits again and again for removing the same problems, specifically when the complainant has purchased a new brand car by paying huge amount. Instead of enjoying the new car complainant is suffering a lot by facing the problems in the car.

16.           As per version of the OP no.1, dashboard has already been replaced on 25.09.2019, but as per complainant the noise is still the same and to open the dashboard again and again, a dent and scratches were occurred on the dashboard. Moreover, OPs have tried to resolve the noise problem by putting foam in the dashboard which is clearly visible, this fact have not been denied by the OP’s.

17.           The complainant has purchased the new brand car for her personal use as she has to go from indri to Yamunanagar. Due to defects in the Car, the very purpose for purchasing the brand new Car has been deprived. The complainant has been harassed by the OPs from the very beginning. As per the version of the OP no.1, they have changed the dashboard of the vehicle on 25.09.2019. It is very surprising, complainant was facing the noise problem in the dashboard from the very beginning and the OPs were removing the same by putting some foam again and again. It was the duty of the OPs, when the problems were not resolvable without replacing the same unit with a new one but OPs have tried to resolve the same by changing some parts of the air conditioner and putting some foam in the dashboard knowing that these problems were not resolvable without replacing the whole units.

18.           OPs no.2 and 3 have failed to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence on availing seven effective opportunities. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The complainant is a Doctor by profession and very busy in her profession. The complainant was harassed by the OPs to the extent that she has been compelled to file the present complaint before this Commission.

19.           It has been proved on record that air conditioner system and dashboard was having inherent manufacturing defects from the very beginning. Thus, the replacement of the whole vehicle is not required and there is only need of changing the whole air conditioner and dashboard with new and the complainant has been continuously mentally and financially harassed by the OPs by giving one excuse to another by depriving complainant’s right from using the car conveniently. Thus, act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is entitled for heavy compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to her as the defects are occurred during the warranty period. Hence, OP no.1 being a manufacturer of the vehicle is liable to replace the both units with a new one. The complainant being mentally and financially harassed by OPs no.2 and 3, they are also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigation expenses.

20.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 being a manufacturer of the vehicle to replace the both units i.e. air conditioner and dashboard with a new one. If the defects not removed by replacing the dashboard and air conditioner units, in that eventuality, OPs are directed to replace the vehicle in question with new one of the same cost or to refund the cost of the vehicle. We further direct the OPs no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lakh) to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:27.09.2022                                                                     

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

      Member                       Member