Haryana

StateCommission

A/716/2019

TATA MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHMA CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SHIV KUMAR

29 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.716 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution:19.08.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 29.08.2019

 

 

1.      Tata Motors Limited through its Chairman/Director, Mr. Ratan N Tata, Bombay House 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai.

 

2.      Tata Motors Limited through its CEO/Managing Director, Mr. Carlpeter Forster, Bombay House 24, Homi Modi Street, Mumbai.

 

3.      Tata Motors Limited through its VP (Sales & Marketing), Mr. R. Ramakrishnan, Block A, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Basant Road, Worli, Mumbai.

 

….. Appellants-Opposite Parties No.1 to 3

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

1.      Sushma Chauhan wife of Sh. S.S. Chauhan, resident of Village Jagatpur, P.O. Miserwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P.

 

……Respondent No.1- Complainant

 

2.      Metro Motors, Bhai Kanhaia Singh Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory.

 

….. Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.4

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                                                         

Present:-    Shri Ivan Singh Khosa, counsel for the appellants.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The complaint preferred by Smt. Sushma Chauhan under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was accepted by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide order dated 31.05.2019 qua opposite parties No.1 to 3 and they were held jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 5% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.  They were also held liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant and directed to comply with the order within a period of 60 days from the date of order or in default, provisions under Section 25 & 27 of the Act were to be invoked against them and in that situation, they were liable to pay interest @ 7% per annum instead of 5%.

2.      Aggrieved of the impugned order, opposite parties No.1 to 3 have filed the instant appeal.

3.      According to the complainant, she had purchased Tata Safari vehicle from opposite party No.4 on 29.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.9,71,710/-.  On 14.05.2009 when the vehicle had plied only 665 kms, it developed problem in break system, noise from underbody, noise made by all the doors, hinges of the doors got loosened and some noise was also in the engine.  The complainant visited opposite party No.4, who replaced the break system and some other parts besides repairing doors vide job card bill dated 14.05.2009 but did not remove noise from the underbody.  In the first week of June, 2009 when the vehicle had done 276 Kms, it again had same faults including underbody noise, noise from clutch release, noise while turning, all doors noise and silencer was touching the body and making noise.  There was complaint of overheating, chassis problem, differential sound, differential tube and steering wheel problem.  On the first visit, opposite party No.4 had changed the rear brake drum, which was defective and told the complainant that other complaints would also be rectified soon. One of the mechanics of opposite party No.4 told the complainant that the differential of the vehicle was defective, chassis of the same was also having manufacturing defect and required replacement. During the period of two months from the date of purchase, the vehicle was having manufacturing defect of noise, silencer, braking system, differential and chassis etc and the vehicle which had been sold by the opposite party No.4 was an old vehicle, which had been used by opposite party No.4 as demo car, which was usually kept by authorized dealers for demonstration, test drive and road shows etc and the same had been sold in the disguise of the new vehicle by opposite party No.4 to the complainant by playing fraud with her and cheating her by committing misrepresentation. On 04.06.2009, the complainant sent legal notice to opposite party No.4 and called upon it to change or replace the defective vehicle within a period of 7 days from the receipt of notice and on receipt of notice, opposite party No.4 called the complainant alongwith her vehicle at Ambala Cantt workshop on 09.06.2009 and checked and repaired the vehicle in question.  In the first week of July, 2009, the vehicle had same faults and the complainant brought the same to opposite party No.4 on 09.07.2009 for second free service and got rectified the defects but the said defects were not properly and permanently rectified, being the vehicle having manufacturing defect and this time, the vehicle had been driven only for 511 Kms and opposite party No.4 issued job card dated 09.07.2009.  On 16.11.2009 when the vehicle had been driven for 16000 Kms, the complainant took the same to opposite party No.4 for third free service.  The complainant again complained of same type of problems.  On 30.03.2010, the vehicle had again same type of problem.  Opposite party No.4 issued bill dated 30.03.2010.  In the first week of April, 2010 when vehicle had again noise problems, due to which on 13.04.2010, the complainant took the same to opposite party No.4 for repairs.  On 24.09.2010, the vehicle had problems, which were not usual maintenance problem, whereas the same were extraordinary defects and fault and the same were got rectified through opposite party No.4.  On 27.09.2010, when the complainant was going for her business in Uttarakhand with her husband, son and one servant, the vehicle broke down in the way at about 8 P.M. and then the complainant, her husband, son and the servant pushed the vehicle in question for about 2 kms and brought the same to Oberoi Motors, Dehradun, who was also authorized dealer of the manufacturer and the vehicle was delivered to her by Oberoi Motors, Dehradun on 16.10.2010 after repair and issued job card dated 16.10.2010 vide which engine timing belt and some other parts were replaced.  On 22.10.2010, the complainant, her husband and her son were going to attend an auction of khair wood at Nurpur (HP) but on the way, the vehicle again developed some problem and bend towards one side, due to which, the complainant could not reach the place of auction, which resulted heavy financial loss to her and the vehicle was got repaired from road side mechanic.  On 29.10.2010, the vehicle again broke down on the way, when the complainant was going to Shimla for her business purpose. The vehicle started making noise like a tractor engine and then the recovery van of the opposite parties reached and after towing the same, it was brought to Hind Motors at Chandigarh being the authorized dealer of manufacturer, where the vehicle was still lying parked for repairs. 

4.      The complainant alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the Safari, which was creating problems repeatedly and she suffered lot of mental agony and harassment and financial loss.  When her vehicle remained parked, the complainant had hired taxi who charged Rs.44,000/- from her and then hired another taxi, which also charged Rs.12,000/-.  Since the day of purchase of the vehicle, most of the time it was lying parked in the service station for repair.  It had done only 41000 kms in a span of about 1 ½ years and the same was having manufacturing defect.  Hence, the complaint.

5.      Upon notice, respondents No.1 to 3 filed written version wherein they pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable.  There was no manufacturing defect in the Safari.  The complainant was running unit of Katha and required the vehicle for the business purpose and the Safari had covered more than 41000 kms within a span of 1 ½ years.  The vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.  The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the Safari was being used for livelihood.   Safari purchased by the complainant was of the highest quality and the complainant had taken the delivery of the Safari after being satisfied with the condition of the same and its performance.  Safari was delivered to the complainant after carrying out pre-delivery inspection by the dealer.  All the cars and vehicles manufactured by the manufacturer were marketed only after the prototype of the car/vehicle being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India.  All the vehicles manufactured in the plant of manufacturer were put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market.  Manufacturer was “ISO TS/16949” certified, which was the international standard for quality systems for all the automotive companies and this international standard specified requirement for a quality system where an organization needed to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product meeting customer’s satisfaction and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.  Each and every vehicle manufactured at the factory of manufacturer also undergo stages of chassis frame drop, frame inversion, engine drop, cab/cowl drop and final inspection and vehicle roll out when the quality inspectors at the respective stage checked the history card and inspected to confirm all aggregate and chassis fitments between the earlier stage and subsequent stage was properly made and to record, in the event of any shortcoming, in the history card.  After rolling out, each vehicle was further subjected to various tests viz. electrical adjustments, dynamometer, brake test, under pit test, performance test before it is dispatched to market.   Whenever any vehicle reported to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repairs, the complaints/grievances of the customer were recorded in job card, which did not imply admission of any defects in the vehicle, but a mere representation of the customer’s grievances on the said vehicle.  Thereafter, standard checks were carried out at the workshop and observation was recorded by Service Advisor on the backside of the job card.

6.      According to the opposite parties No.1 to 3, the complainant had filed the complaint with malafide intention and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed.

7.      The opposite party No.4 in its written version denied any deficiency in service on its part and pleaded that as and when the Safari was brought to it, it was timely repaired.  The complainant was using the Safari for commercial purpose and she was not consumer as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, CPC 2010 (1), 379.  Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum was concerned as Safari was purchased by the complainant under hire purchase agreement with State Bank of India, Majra Branch, Tehsil Paonta Sahib and to that extent she was not consumer being a hirer of the vehicle.  Till the entire payment of loan was not repaid and the financer was owner of the vehicle, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum was barred as per law laid down by Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in case titled Tata Motors Finance Vs. Marjan Hussain, decided on 13.02.2003.  The complaint had been filed with malafide intention.  Moreover, Hind Motors, Chandigarh where Safari stated to be parked had not been impleaded as necessary party and Safari was lying parked unattended in the workshop of opposite party No.4.

8.      During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit (Annexure CA) and also the affidavit (Annexure CB) of her husband and relied upon documents (Annexures C-1 to C-25) and Statement of Account (Exhibit M-1) issued by State Bank of India. 

9.      On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed the affidavit (Annexure R1/A) of Shri Sharmendra Chaudhary.  Opposite party No.4 tendered the affidavit (Exhibit R4/A) and relied upon documents (Annexures R4/1 to R4/2).

10.    After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence led by the parties, learned District Forum held that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which had done 41000 km within a span of 1 ½ years.  However, as the complainant had been required to get the vehicle repaired time and again so as to make the vehicle roadworthy, learned District Forum held the opposite parties No.1 to 3 liable to compensate the complainant in monetary terms by paying her Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 

11.    Learned District Forum has held that the complaint preferred by the complainant was within limitation and the complainant fell within the ambit of “consumer”.  It was also held that the opposite party No.4 did not sell demonstration vehicle to the complainant.  It was further held that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  All these questions having been decided in favour of opposite parties No.1 to 3 are not required to be reconsidered especially when the complainant has not preferred any appeal on the aforesaid issues. 

12.    The only issue, which requires to be examined is as to whether the complainant was liable to be compensated on account of the fact that she had not been able to enjoy the vehicle which she had purchased, to her satisfaction or as to whether she had been harassed as she was required to take her vehicle to the service station time and again.

13.    The complainant had purchased brand new vehicle, which was to be used by her for business as well as domestic purposes.  She had not purchased it to park it at her house.  In a short span of time i.e. about one and half years, the complainant had to take the vehicle to the workshop a number of times as it had been developing various types of snags, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and wastage of her time.  The vehicle is still required to be made roadworthy.  Obviously, for that purpose, she will be spending a considerable amount. The vehicle had been purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and going by the nature and type of the vehicle, it would be just and proper to compensate the complainant by directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to compensate her adequately.

14.    In view of the above, this Commission finds that no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. The appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore dismissed.     

15.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants-opposite parties No.1 to 3 at the time of filing the appeal be released in favour of Smt. Sushma Chauhan-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 29.08.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K