Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/895

TATA MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ RITESH VYAS - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 895 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 28.01.2013 passed in C.C.No.14/2011 by District Commission, Hoshangabad)

 

MANAGING DIRECTOR,

TATA MOTORS MARKETING AND CUSTOMER

SUPPORT, PASSENGER CAR BUSINESS UNIT,

ONE FORBES, 5^TH FLOOR,

DR. V. B. GANDHI MARG,

FORT, MUMBAI-400 023

 

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT

TATA MOTORS LTD,

BOMBAY HOUSE,

24, HOMI MODY STREET,

MUMBAI-400 001                                                                                          … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. RITESH VYAS,

    S/O SHRI MANISHANKAR VYAS,

    R/O VIKRAM NAGAR, RASOOLIYA,

    DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD-461 001

 

2. MANAGER, MECHMAN MOTORS PVT.LTD.

    NH-12, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,

    NEAR THE MARK HOTEL

    BHOPAL-462 026 (M.P.) 

 

3. SHIVKANT PARDESI,

    SALES EXECUTIVE, MECHMAN MOTORS

    PVT. LTD. BHOPAL SUB TATA MOTORS

    SHOWROOM, NEAR VATESHWAR

    HANUMAN TEMPLE, ITARSI ROAD,

    HOSHANGABAD.                                                                             …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Manish Sarathe, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2 & 3.

-2-

 O R D E R

(Passed On  10.08.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the opposite party no.1 /appellant against the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.14/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed.

2.                The facts of the case as stated by the complainant/respondent no.1 are that he had purchased a car ‘Tata Indica Vista Aqua TDS’ at the instance of opposite party no.3/respondent no.3 from the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2 who is the authorized dealer of opposite party no.1/appellant on 09.09.2010 after making payment of Rs.4,55,000/-.  The complainant/respondent no.1 alleged that the subject vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects as since after its purchase started giving trouble and despite efforts, the opposite party no.2 failed to remove the defects.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties, for selling defective vehicle to the complainant, he filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.  

3.                The opposite party no.1/appellant who is the manufacturer of the car resisted the complaint stating that the District Commission

-3-

Hoshangabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant had purchased the vehicle at Bhopal and has reported to the opposite party no.2 at Bhopal for every service, therefore cause of action wholly arose at Bhopal.  It is further stated that the complainant had failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the owner’s manual as recommended for smooth and maximum performance of the car. The complainant had failed to carry out scheduled services of the car as per recommended service schedule. The complainant had made misconceived and baseless allegations of manufacturing defect in the car without relying on any expert opinion.  It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission holding the opposite parties deficient in service allowed the complaint directing them jointly or severally to replace the car or in alternative to pay cost of the car Rs.4,55,000/- to the respondent no.1 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 28.01.2011 till payment. Further it was directed to refund the amount of Rs.19,936/-charged towards repairs. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.4,000/- has also been awarded. 

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.1 as none appeared for the respondent no.2 & 3. Perused the record.

 

-4-

6.                We have perused the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. On going through the documents we find no document evidencing that the complainant had purchased the car at the instance of opposite party no.3 at Hoshangabad or the car was delivered to him at Hoshangabad. The complainant in paragraph 4 of the complaint had stated that on 29.09.2010, when his vehicle stopped functioning he tried to contact the opposite party no.3 but he failed to do so. This clearly shows that by adding the opposite party no.3 to the complaint he tried to bring the complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of Hoshangabad particularly when the opposite party no.2 denied the fact that the opposite party no.3 is not their agent. From the documents available on record it is evident that he purchased the vehicle from opposite party no.2 at Bhopal, and every time for servicing he brought the car to opposite party no.2 at Bhopal, and therefore the cause of action wholly arose at Bhopal and in such circumstances, the District Commission, Hoshangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7.                The second point involved in the matter is regarding manufacturing defect. So far as the allegation of the complainant that immediately after its purchase the vehicle started giving trouble is concerned, we find that at the time of first servicing which was late as per service schedule cold starting problem was stated which was attended and

-5-

removed by the opposite party no.2. Thereafter the second servicing was skipped by the complainant and thereafter third and fourth servicing were also done late comparing to servicing schedule. After some time the vehicle met with an accident and suffered damages. As per warranty conditions, any repairs or replacements in the car in the event of accident was refused by the opposite party no.2.

8.                It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant failed to bring any expert evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Even at the request of the opposite party no.1, the complainant did not bother to get the vehicle tested by some expert. The onus was on the complainant to prove that the subject vehicle was having manufacturing defects specifically when the opposite party no.1/appellant had filed an application on 11.07.2011 for appointment of the authorized institution/expert/recognized laboratory within the provisions of Section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant ought to have submit the report after thorough inspection of the car by the appropriate laboratory. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act clearly specifies “before any sample of the goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), the District Forum may require the complainant to deposit to the credit of the Forum such fees as may be specified, for the payment to the appropriate laboratory for carrying out necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in question.”

-6-

It is the duty of the complainant and not of the opposite party no.1 to get the vehicle examined by some expert/appropriate laboratory to substantiate his allegation regarding manufacturing defect. The opposite party no.1 was bonafide to move such an application for examination of the vehicle. It is the complainant who had alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle then he should have come forward to get the vehicle examined. The District Commission instead of directing the complainant to get the vehicle examined by some expert, vide order sheet dated 04.09.2011 dismissed the application filed by the opposite party no.1/appellant holding that since the opposite party no.1/appellant is not serious therefore, the application is dismissed. Further it is mentioned in the order sheet that if it is found necessary to inspect the vehicle by some expert then this point will be considered at that particular time but was not considered.  Thus the District Commission committed grave error in holding that since the opposite party no.1/appellant is not serious, therefore the application is dismissed.

9.                From the record, we find that for want of expert evidence it cannot be concluded that the subject vehicle was having manufacturing defect as the complainant himself was negligent in not getting the servicing properly as per service schedule as also not examining the vehicle by some expert or appropriate laboratory regarding alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

-7-

10.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed gross error in entertaining the complaint without having territorial jurisdiction as also on merits in holding the opposite parties deficient in service and in directing them for replacement of vehicle or to return the cost of the vehicle. The impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.

11.              In the result, the appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.

 

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member