JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant purchased a Tata Indica car from  R-2 Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd, an authorized dealer of the petitioner company which had manufactured the said vehicle.  The vehicle was purchased on 05.02.2007.  The case of the complainant is that soon after purchase of the vehicle by him, it started giving problems.  There was persistent wobbling of the vehicle and its air-conditioner was not working efficiently.  The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the company on 20.03.2007.  At that time the vehicle had run for about 15,000 kms.  A perusal of the job slip available on page 111-112 of the paper book would show that the complainant had complained about the vehicle wobbling, wheel rim requiring repair and the AC cooling being inefficient.  The vehicle was returned to the complainant after it was attended to by the mechanics at the workshop. 

2.      A perusal of the job car available on pages 114-115 of the paper book would show that the vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 12.07.2007. By that time it had run for about 20000 kms.  At that time also the complainant complained about wobbling of vehicle as well as about air-conditioning being insufficient and the rattling of the dash-board. The vehicle was attended to and was returned to the complainant.

3.      The perusal of the job slip dated 07.09.2007 would show that the vehicle was again taken to the workshop on that date and by that time it had run 24,448 kms.  The complainant again complained about wobbling of the vehicle and also pointed out some problem with the wheels’ rims.  However, there was no problem with respect to the air conditioning. Though dash-board rattling was also a problem pointed out on that date, the said problem was sorted out as is evident from the endorsement made on the job card.  However, the complainant did not take the vehicle back on that date and the endorsement made by him on the job card in Gujarati indicates that he was not satisfied with the repair work carried out at the workshop.  Thereafter the vehicle remained at the workshop and was never taken back by the complainant. 

4.      Vide letter dated 01.10.2007 the petitioner company informed the complainant that as per the information received by them from dealer M/s  Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd the car was ready for delivery after it had been attended.  The complainant was requested to take the delivery of the vehicle.  Admittedly, the complainant did not visit the workshop pursuant to the afore-said letter and did not try to take its delivery or even to test-drive the vehicle.

5.      Vide letter dated 10.09.2008 the dealer M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd. informed the complainant that all the problems in the car had been removed and he was requested to take back the vehicle.  The complainant, however, did not visit the workshop of M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd. even on receipt of the afore-said letter and rather approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the price which he paid for the car along-with compensation.

6.      The complaint was resisted by the dealer M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd. which denied any defect in the car and inter-alia stated that the problems pointed out by the complainant had been duly attended and that he did not come forward to take the delivery of the vehicle.  The petitioner company, however, did not file any written version to the consumer complaint. 

7.      The District Forum, vide its order dated 29.04.2009 directed as under:-

“The Complainant's complaint is  partly being admitted and order is hereby being given to the Opponents herein, that they may take back the Tata Indica Car DLS EURO IIII Model, purchased by the Complainant and replace the same with a new Tata Indica Cr DLS EURO IIII model to the Complainant, and if the replacement of the car cannot be done, then they may make the payment of of the price of the Car of Rs. 3,40,980/- (Rupees three lakh forty thousand nine hundred eighty only ) with interest at the rate of 9% from 8.10.2007, to the Complainant, and it is being ordered to pay the cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), to the complainant.”

8.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 28.02.2013 the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed as under:-

“(1)      The original opponents shall replace the defective car supplied to the complainant with a new car of the same model by charging Rs.40,000/- as slated in the judgment; or in the alternative

(2)       The original opponents shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,980/- whereupon the complainant shall hand over possession of the defective car to the opponents, if he is still in possession of the same.

(3)       Rest of the order passed by the District Forum is maintained.”

9.      The dealer M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd. had also filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum and that appeal is also stated to have been dismissed.

10.    The only issue involved in this petition is that as to whether there was any manufacturing defect or any unrepairabale defect in the vehicle sold to the complainant or not and whether the complainant was justified in not visiting the workshop despite receipt of letter dated 01.10.2007 from the petitioner company and the letter dated 10.09.2008 from the dealer M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd.

11.    It is evident from the job cards that the problem of wobbling of the vehicle had surfaced soon after the vehicle was purchased, the first job card having been opened as early as on 20.03.2007 about one and half month of taking delivery of the vehicle.  The job card dated 07.09.2007 shows that the afore-said problem could not be repaired by the car dealer at the workshop of the petitioner company even in about 4 months.  If the wobbling of the vehicle was not a major defect there could be no reason for the said defect not being removed at the workshop despite three visits lasting about 4 months.  The very fact that the complainant refused to take delivery of the vehicle on 07.09.2007 with an endorsement that the defect in the car had persisted clearly shows that the workshop was unable to remove the defect. 

12.    It is true that after about 24 days of the complainant leaving the car at the workshop, the petitioner company had sent him a letter stating therein that the car had been attended to and he should take the delivery of the car from the workshop but the complainant did not bother to visit the workshop for this purpose.  He did not make such an attempt even on receipt of the letter dated 10.09.2008 from the car dealer M/s Kenson Motors Pvt. Ltd.  However, I am in agreement with the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the complainant could not be expected to keep on visiting the workshop despite his having already given more than adequate time for removing the defects which had surfaced in the vehicle soon after it was purchased.  The workshop had almost four months’ time to remove the problem of wobbling of the vehicle.  The inability of the workshop to remove the afore-said defect even in four months is a clear indicator that the defect was of a major nature and that was the reason the workshop was unable to remove the same.  Though, the petitioner company had informed the complainant vide its letter dated 01.10.2007 that the car had been attended to by the dealer, the complainant was justified in not acting upon the said letter, he having already given almost four months for removing the defect which had surfaced in the vehicle.  There was no guarantee that had the complainant visited the workshop on receipt of the letter dated 01.10.2007 the problem of the wobbling of the vehicle would not have been found in the vehicle.  A person purchases a new vehicle for the peace of mind. On purchasing a new vehicle he hopes and trusts that the vehicle will run smoothly and will not give any major problem at least during the warranty period of the vehicle.  But in this case the vehicle started giving trouble soon after it was purchased and the authorized workshop of the manufacturer was not able to remove the defect despite the vehicle having been taken there for at least three times.  In these circumstances, the complainant could not be expected to keep on visitng the workshop and trying the vehicle in the hope that the defect in the vehicle may possibly have been removed by the workshop. 

13.    The complainant purchased the vehicle for about Rs.3,41,000/-.  The vehicle was driven by him for about  24,000 kms and thereafter it was left at the workshop.  Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the use of the vehicle by the complainant for about 24,000 kms., I feel that the petitioner and the car dealer jointly and severally should pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to the complainant along with interest on that amount @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. the date on which the consumer complaint was instituted till the date of the payment.  The revision petition stands disposed of.