Haryana

StateCommission

CC/347/2019

OM PRAKASH KANOUJIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TATA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.347 of 2019

                                             Date of Institution:24.10.2019

          Date of Decision: 06.11.2019

 

Om Prakash Kanoujia S/o Sh.Anand Ram Kanoujia, age 37 years, R/o MM (deemed to be) University, Mullana, Ambala, Haryana.

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Tata Motors, Head Office, Tata Motors Ltd., 4^th Floor, Abhura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093, Contact 022-62407101.

2.      Tata Motors, Passenger Vehicles, Tata Motors Ltd., Godrej Eternia, Plot No.70, 4^th Floor, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160002.

3.      RSA Motors Pvt.Ltd. Plot number 40 Industrial Area Phase II Chandigarh, 160002 Near Passport Seva Kendra Chandigarh Service Center, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh, 160002.

4.      Panchkula Automobiles, 79, Baltana Main Road, Industrial Area Phase 1, Panchkula, Haryana 134109

5.      Metro Motors, 121 Railway Road, Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana 133001.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member.

                  

 

For the parties:  Complainant in person.

 

O R D E R

 

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

As per order dated 06.11.2019 contained in letter No.2601, I am conducting these proceedings singly.

2.      It is alleged by complainant that on 16.03.2019, he purchased vehicle i.e. TATA Harrier from opposite party No.4 for an amount of Rs.16,56,389/- alongwith two years warranty.  In the night of 05.04.2019, the vehicle was having some problem  as malfunction in drive mode, hill descent, cruise control and ABS light.  In the beginning,  O.Ps. provided me the job card, there was no mention of the problem and it’s solution.  On 08.04.2019, the cruise control of the vehicle stopped working.  On 13.04.2019 the software had hung for more than 20 minutes.  The complainant reported all the events to the customer representative of O.P.Nos.1 and 2.  He sent number of emails to the Ops, but, these emails did not work.  He had claimed that vehicle sold to him was faulty and immediate replacement was needed before getting the vehicle registered with Transport Authority, Chandigarh.   On 28.05.2019, technicians of OP No.3 from Pune plant of OP No.1 worked on the vehicle till 3^rd June 2019, 12 parts were replaced in new car, which was two months old.  Again, the vehicle was having some problem with regard to drive mode malfunctioning and noises from different parts of the vehicle.  On 21.07.2019, the OP No.1 again replaced some parts of the vehicle.  Despite several requests and e-mails, the vehicle was not properly rectified by the O.Ps.     He  suffered  financial loss and also had undergone mental agony and harassment due to the above-said multiple issues in the vehicle.  He served the legal notice to Ops on 31.07.2019 but, only O.P.No.3 replied to the notice. Thus there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Complainant in person argued that despite several requests, the vehicle was not properly rectified by the O.Ps and prayed that complaint be allowed and Ops be directed to pay Rs. 16,92,889/- alongwith compensation of Rs.7/- lacs on account of selling a faulty vehicle and compensation of Rs.Two lacs  on account of suffering loss of work/business.

5.      In order to prove the cost of the vehicle, the complainant must place on record sale letter or quotation of the vehicle, but, he has not placed on record the same.  He also demanded Rs.Seven lacs on account of selling a faulty vehicle and compensation of Rs.Two lacs  on account of suffering loss of work/business, which is cannot be taken into consideration at this stage for determining pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

6.      This issue in hand is decided by Hon’ble National Commission headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K.Jain, President, while dismissing consumer complaint No.383 of 2013, Indrani Chatterjee and another Vs. Amri Hospitals alongwith fifteen other complaints, vide common order dated November 7^th, 2014, observing as under

“We are in the opinion that, as at present, the complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to on what basis the claims ranging between Rs.7,00,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,00,000/- have been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.”

 

7.      Hon’ble National Commission did not entertain the complainant titled as Kumary Femy and others Vs. Kavithaa V.K.(Dr.) and others, 1 (2013) CPJ 34 (NC) observing that compensation claimed was highly exaggerated and did not borne out by the material placed on record.

8.      On a careful analysis of the principles stated in the foregoing cases and perusing case file, this Commission is of the view that cost of vehicle admittedly is below Rs.20/- lacs and compensation amount claimed by claimant is also highly exaggerated and not borne out by the material placed on the record.  The complainant has unreasonably inflated the claim for bringing his complaint within the jurisdiction of the Commission.  Compensation can be granted taking into consideration the grievances.  In the present case, the complainant has only alleged that the vehicle was not properly working despite several requests.  The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process and procedure of law. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission  for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.  Thus, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.  He may file fresh complaint before the competent forum.

 

November 6th, 2019

Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Addl. Bench

S.K.