Haryana

Karnal

CC/361/2020

Sqn. Leader Hirdesh Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tara Motors Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikash Kumar Singh

29 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.361 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.10.09.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 29.08.2024

 

Sqn. Leader Hirdesh Arora son of Navneet Arora serving at Air Force Station Kasauli, Multanpur (Chandigarh), Himachal Pradesh and resident of house no.2283, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Vehicle Business unit, Godrej Etrenia, Plot no.70, 4^th floor Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh -160002 through its Authorized Person/Regional Manager.
2. M/s RP Jhunthra Automobiles (Tata Motors) Mansa Road Bhatinda (Punjab) 151001 Phone no.0164-274011 through its authorized person.
3. Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Vehicle Business Unit 4^th floor Ahura Centre, 82, Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri-East Mumbai (Maharashtra) through its authorized person/Managing Director.
4. Metro Motors Pvt. Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Authorized person/Manager.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Vikas Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Deepak Tuteja, counsel for the OPs no.1 &3.

                    OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 18.04.2022.

                    Shri Mukesh Sharma, counsel for the OP no.4.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is a Squadron Leader in Indian Air force and he is posted at Air Force Station Mullan Pur Chandigarh. The complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Harrier XT (D), vide Engine no.46336890-4040398, chassis no.MAT631121KPE58380, vide invoice no.97 dated 07.06.2019 from the OP no.2. The complainant purchased the aforesaid vehicle through Government of India (Ministry of defence) Bhatinda Area Depot Bhatinda Punjab and the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.13,52,723/- through RTGS dated 28.05.2019 in advance and to this effect a receipt no.27667 dated 29.05.2019. In the month of July, 2019 family of the complainant had gone to attend a marriage ceremony to Delhi and while driving the aforesaid vehicle, the father of the complainant noticed that the Tail Gate of the aforesaid vehicle was not locked nor it showed any sign or alarm on the screen. The parents of the complainant were shocked to see this defect and father of complainant tried to lock the tail gate of the said vehicle but all in vain and they faced a lot of problem physically as well as mentally and they were unable to attend the marriage function because luggage and expensive items were lying in the said vehicle. The father of complainant drove the said car in the same condition (Tail Gate open) from Delhi to Karnal. On the next day, father of complainant visited the service centre i.e. OP no.4 and narrated the whole episode and the fault of the aforesaid vehicle to Mr. Hans Raj Sharma General Manager Services Metro Motor Pvt. Ltd. Karnal and after checking the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant, the OP no.4 also found the Tail Gate problem besides this OP no.4 also found one more problem in Clutch Pedal and OP no.4 kept the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant with them on 27.07.2019.  As such the Tail Gate problem has been solved by the service centre of the OP no.4 by replacing the Tail Gate/Boot LID Lock Upper and Boot LID lock Lower and also got repaired the clutch pedal and delivered the vehicle on 29.07.2019 and to this effect a tax invoice dated 29.07.2019 was also issued. The father of complainant complained to OPs no.3 and 4 that they have delivered a defective vehicle. Both the OPs gave assurance to the father of complainant that in future they will not face any technical problem in the aforesaid vehicle as the OP no.4 has properly checked the said vehicle.

2.             It is further averred that in the month of September 2019, the complainant noticed while driving that steering of the said vehicle was giving little vibration when vehicle turned to extreme left or right and after few days, the vibration in steering started coming even while normal driving condition of the aforesaid vehicle and while driving from Karnal to Chandigarh, the car steering started vibrating and giving jerk during driving as such the complainant alongwith said car visited to Barkeley Tata Motors Plot no.40 Industrial Area Phase-II Chandigarh, where after checking the said car at Service Centre, they found some sort of leakage in hydraulic system and they got the said leakage repaired and to this effect a Tax Invoice dated 04.09.2019 was issued and at that time Mr. Chandresh Service Manager of Tata Motor Chandigarh gave assurance to the complainant that all the problems have been sorted out by them and in future, the complainant will not face any technical problem in the said vehicle but complainant was feeling little sound and vibration, when steering is turned extreme left or right. Thereafter, in the month of January 2020, father of complainant was going to AIIMS Delhi for his eyes checkup and while driving the car, firstly he felt some burning smell inside the car cabin near Murthal Sonepat and he stopped the car inside, and made a telephone call to Mr. Hans Raj Sharma, General Manager of the OP no.4 and narrated the same who advised to father of complainant to stop the car for some time to cool down the engine. Accordingly, the car was stopped for about 1½ hours and thereafter, started moving towards AIIMS Delhi. While driving, the father of the complainant again felt burning smell in the cabin of the said car near to the AIIMS Delhi and the smell was so strong, the father of complainant immediately stopped the car and made a call to Customer Car of Tata Motor and a crane reached on the spot and it was taken to Concorde Motor India Limited, Delhi. The father of complainant narrated that there was some problem in the brake switch and the same has been sorted out by them and further told that now there is no problem in the said vehicle and they issued a Tax Invoice dated 06.01.2020. On the next day, father of the complainant visited to the OP no.4 where vehicle was checked and after that Mr.Hans Raj General Manager Services Metro Motors Pvt.Ltd. Karnal narrated that there is no issue with the brake but it is the clutch plates that were causing the burning smell and they removed the clutch plates and after repairing, they reinstall the same clutch plates again and they kept said vehicle from 07.01.2020 to 11.01.2020 and to this effect they also issued Tax invoice dated 11.01.2020. On the repeated requests of complainant and his father, on 18.01.2020, Mr. Mehta Customer Support Manager Tata Motor Regional Office and Hans Raj General Manager Metro Motor Karnal visited to the house of the complainant at Karnal where they met with the father of the complainant in presence of Yash Chopra Advocate, Bhupinder Kataria Advocate and the mother of the complainant. The father of complainant narrated the aforesaid entire episode regarding the repeated technical fault in the vehicle and harassment due to these defects since beginning of purchase of the vehicle and also requested them to change the aforesaid vehicle with new one, on which both the officials of Tata Motors Ltd. gave assurance in the presence of aforesaid persons that they will try to get replaced the vehicle with new one and felt sorry on behalf of Tata Motors. Thereafter, complainant and his father approached the OPs several times via telephonically as well as through emails and wrote various letters to OPs no.1 and 2 but all in vain. The complainant got insured the aforesaid vehicle from insurance company and also obtained the registration certificate from the concerned authority and for this he has spent about Rs.2,00,000/- for the same.  Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment as well as financial loss. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.02.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 3 appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; jurisdiction and suppression of true and material facts.  On merits, it is pleaded that the present dispute cannot be termed as a consumer disputes at all. Even otherwise, the vehicle in question was purchased on 07.06.2019 and has covered 6400 Kms, till 25.01.2020, which would amply prove that the vehicle does not suffer from any manufacturing defect or inherent defect. From the perusal of the complaint, it would be apparent that the complainant has failed to prove that the vehicle in question actually suffers from any defect. The complainant has further miserably failed to bring home the point that the vehicle is suffering from any defect much less manufacturing defect, as the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his frivolous allegations. The complainant by merely making bald averments, has alleged manufacturing defects and the complainant not being an expert in the field of automobiles, the allegations of the complainant cannot be relied upon and should be out rightly rejected. On the contrary, the complainant by manipulating the actual and correct facts, has made an attempt to prejudice the mind of this Commission. The allegations leveled by the complainant are nowhere near the truth. It is further pleaded that complainant has not followed the due procedure of driving as per the manual and due to his careless and negligent driving, the alleged problem occurred for which OPs cannot held liable or responsible and discharged from their liability under the warranty clauses, which is clearly mentioned in clause no.5 of the terms and conditions of warranty. The complainant is irregular in respect of carrying out scheduled services. Complainant himself has been negligent in handling the vehicle, as such he is not at all entitled to any compensation as claimed. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect. The vehicle sold to the complainant is of the highest quality and fully complied with the assurance and specifications provided by the OPs regarding the quality and the performance of the vehicle. The relationship of the OPs and its dealers is on principal to principal basis. OPs cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the vehicle sold to the complainant, is of highest quality and the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle, after pre-delivery inspection and entire satisfaction and fully complies with the warranties, assurance and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the vehicle. The vehicle in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. Complainant has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his contention to show that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect. No expert evidence has been adduced by the complainant to establish any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was reported to the workshop on 27.07.2019 for first free service, when the vehicle had covered 1656KMs within a span of around 1½  months. On inspection, it was found that the issue of Tail Gate of the vehicle was not locking, which was a minor repair and the same was duly carried out at the concerned workshop. It is vehemently denied that due to this minor issue, parents of the complainant had faced lot of problem physically and mentally as alleged. It is also denied that the clutch pedal of the vehicle had any problem. It is also denied that vehicle had any inherent manufacturing defect as alleged. It is further pleaded that vehicle was reported at the workshop of the dealer on 04.09.2019 for general check up, rectification, power steering oil leak. After thorough checking all the minor repairs were duly carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost. On 04.09.2019, the vehicle had covered 2735 Kms. Further, during normal course of driving, minor repairs are bound to occur which cannot be termed as manufacturing defect or otherwise. 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.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 04.07.2024 of the Commission.

5.             OP no.4 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and suppression of true and material facts.  On merits, it is pleaded that the OP is a service provider has no knowledge about the allegations made in the complaint. As per vehicle history, the complainant had visited on 25.01.2020 at R.S.A. Motors, Chandigarh for normal job i.e. too for pick and drop services and sometimes the complainant had been visiting at Concord Motors, Delhi and the vehicle was taken from them as per service history record, hence the complainant has no case. The vehicle was received on 07.01.2020 for schedule service and the same was attended while running 6219 Kms and thereafter the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle was received on 11.01.2020 for schedule service and again the same was attended and thereafter the same was delivered back with Zero amount. If the complainant has any problem in the vehicle in question, then he may visit on any working day, he likes in the workshop of OP no.4, so that it may be checked properly. 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 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of sale certificate dated 07.06.2019 Ex.C1, copy of purchase order dated 30.05.2019 Ex.C2, copy of tax invoices dated 29.05.2019, 27.07.2019, 04.09.2019 and 06.01.2020 Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of tax invoices dated 07.01.2020 and dated 11.01.2020 Ex.C6 and Ex.C6/A, copy of complaint Ex.C7, postal receipt Ex.C7/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C8, copy of RC Ex.C8/A, copy of legal notice dated 20.02.2020 Ex.C9, copy of postal receipts Ex.C9/A and Ex.C9/B, copy of emails dated 26.01.2020 and 30.01.2020 Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, copy of OPD card dated 06.01.2020 Ex.C12, Angiography  dated 06.1.2020 Ex.C12/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             In additional evidence, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Mechanical Report dated 07.10.2023 of Er. J.K. Sharma, Chartered Engineer, Automobile Engineer-Valuer and Consultant as Ex.C14 and closed the additional evidence on 20.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.            

9.             On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sharmendra Chaudhary Deputy General Manager Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 21.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.           

10.           Learned counsel for the OP no.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Hans Raj, General Manager, Metro Motors Ex.OP4/A, copies of service histories dated 08.09.2022, 09.02.2021, 12.12.2020, 06.01.2020  and 27.07.2019 Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/5, copy of job card Ex.OP4/6 and closed the evidence on 21.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

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

12.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the car in question from the OP no.2 for the sale consideration of Rs.13,52,723/-. In the month of July 2019, father of complainant while going to Delhi, noticed that Tail Gate of the vehicle is not going to lock. Complainant approached OP no.4 in this regard and also about problem in clutch pedal. After repairing the same, the car was handed over. In the month of September 2019, when the complainant was going to Chandigarh, he again noticed problem in the steering of the vehicle and got checked the car from Barkeley Tata Motors, Chandigarh, they found some sort of leakage in hydraulic system. After repair, the car was delivered to the complainant. In the month of January 2020, father of complainant was going to AIIMS, Delhi for his eyes checkup and while driving the car, in the way, he felt some burning smell inside the car cabin. The car was taken to Concorde Motors India Limited, Delhi, through crane where they replaced the clutch plate. Thereafter, complainant repeatedly visited the OP no.4 for repair of the car, but  despite their best efforts, the defects could not be removed by the OPs. Due to mechanical defects, the complainant was saved from many untoward incidents and has suffered mental pain and agony as well as financial loss and prayed for allowing the complaint.

13.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 & 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that neither the complainant nor his father followed the due procedure of driving as per the manual and due to their careless and negligent driving, the alleged problem occurred, for which OPs cannot hold liable or responsible. The vehicle in question has been given to the complainant after inspection and his entire satisfaction. Complainant has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his contention to show that the vehicle is having any manufacturing defect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OPs.

14.           Learned counsel for the OP no.4, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the vehicle was received on 07.01.2020 for schedule service and the same was attended while running 6219 Kms. Thereafter, vehicle was received on 09.01.2020 for schedule service and again the same was attended. If the complainant has any problem in the vehicle in question, then he may visit on any working day, so that it may be checked properly. There are no mechanical defects in the vehicle in question and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.4.

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           Admittedly, complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP no.2 for the total sale consideration of Rs.13,52,723/-. It is also admitted that the complainant approached the OPs several times with regard to his grievances.

17.           The complainant has alleged that the vehicle in question was/is having a manufacturing defect from the date of its purchase and he approached to the OPs several times to remove the defects but the OPs failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle of the complainant. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, the complainant has relied upon the tax invoices dated 29.07.2019 Ex.C3, 04.09.2019 Ex.C4, 06.01.2020 Ex.C5,  07.01.2020  Ex.C6 and Ex.C6/A, complaint dated 29.01.2020 Ex.C7 and e-mails Ex.C10 & C11. On perusal of the above said invoices, e-mails and complaint, it reveals that the complainant has approached the OPs several times for removing the defects occurred in the vehicle in question.

18.           The complainant got mechanically examined the vehicle in question from Engineer J. K. Sharma, who is qualified Automobile Engineer, Valuer and Consultant. After inspecting the vehicle in question, said engineer has prepared his report Ex.C14 dated 07.10.2023. The relevant portion of the said report is reproduced as under:-

        Inspection: Observation and Opinion:-

After a careful inspection of the vehicle and going through the history taken from the dealer, my detailed observations and opinion are as under:-

1.     The inspection of car was carried out in presence of Shri Navneet Arora, the father of the owner and opinion and versions were discussed openly. The records were taken. The main complaints those were observed, Tail gate locking, vibration in steering, Engine notice and Engine Vibration.

2.     The car was taken to a workshop for further observation and diagnosing the reported faults. During inspection the test drive for 50 KMs was taken and the faults observed were noticed down.

3.     It was observed that there was noise in steering during turning and vibration was on speed. There was jerking in break system. The doors were rattling.

4.     The car was taken under trial by the repairer in the name of repair and replaced some parts but the main fault could not be removed. The BCM or the sensor installed may have some malfunction. The rattling noise in body parts may be the improper fittings/setting. The malfunctioning of engine and steering system are of manufacturing defects. The car was purchased a new one but has some defects related to manufacturing deficiency.

5.     The defects present in the car were technically studied and concluded that the car has some defects continuously since the purchase time to till date. There is a problem in locking of the car, malfunctioning, leakage and power locking in engine. Noise in steering during turning and vibration in speed, uncomfortable drive in speed. Feeling burning smell inside the car. Unsafe due to locking problem of the door.

 Conclusions:-

1.     In consideration to the above mentioned observations which are of fundamental in nature. I am of the firm opinion that the damages mentioned in the complaint, detailed by the repairer and as per present condition of the car may be of multiple reasons contributing to the workman ship or manufacturing or material use. Further, it is also considered that it will highly affect the performance of the car even after the repair.

2.     Even if seemingly repaired in the short term, without finding the proper reasons, these may cause serious harm to the car engine and body, and the under overtime.

3.     The car would require very frequent visitations to the automobile workshops until the repair work or replacement of faulty unit done.

Final opinion:

After going through the details submitted, record of the service and repairs and complaints by the owner of the car, physical inspection and discussion with all concerned. I am of the firm opinion that:

1. The owner of the car has purchased the captioned car and regularly visited the workshop for repair and the servicing. The owner feels problems in using the car due to the defects and faults as narrated above.
2. The car still not performing up to the given assurance at the time of purchase. It has the rattling noise in body parts, doors and tail gate panels, vibration and noise in steering, leakage of engine oil, burning smell inside the car, low engine performance instability. The car was sent to dealer to rectify the faults. The defects could not be diagnosed properly. The defects are related to manufacturing nature which could not be rectified in dealer workshop or deliberate delay caused the problem. The performance and value of the car will also highly depreciate as the time passes.
3. Its finally submitted that this vehicle seems absolutely unsafe and unreliable to drive which may lead fatal consequences. As it has always been a regular mental and physical torture since immediately post purchase. This motor is considered a serious hazard for its passengers as well as common commuters on the road owing to major manufacturing and technical issues thus not advisable to run it further with immediate effect.

 

19.           The OPs have not rebutted the said Mechanical Report Ex.C14. As per the said Report Ex.C14, the vehicle in question is having noise in body parts, leakage of engine oil and low engine performance instability. The said defects are related to manufacturing in nature which could not be rectified in dealer workshop. The vehicle is unsafe and unreliable to drive. Hence, from the said report and tax invoices Ex.C3 to Ex.C6, complaint Ex.C7 and e-mails Ex.C10 and Ex.C11, it has been proved on record that the car in question is having manufacturing defects since the date of its purchase. Hence the plea taken by the OPs that the vehicle in question was/is not having any inherent manufacturing defect is having no force. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the evidence of the complainant on record is sufficient to establish that there was/is manufacturing defect in the car, which could not be removed by the authorized workshop of the company despite the fact that the car was taken to the workshop repeatedly.

20.           Complainant submits that he is not interested to replace the vehicle in question being he was harassed too much by the OPs. Thus, he wants to get refund the cost of the vehicle in question.

21.           The complainant claimed Rs.15,52,723/- cost of the car in question including insurance and registration charges. The cost of the car was Rs.13,52,723/-. The car was purchased by the complainant on 07.06.2019 and the same is being used by him since then. Therefore, complainant is entitled only for the cost of the car alongwith compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards litigation expenses.

22.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.3 (being manufacturer) to pay Rs.13,52,723/- as cost of the car in question to the complainant. We further We further direct the OP no.3 to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- towards the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is directed to handover the car in question to the OP No.3 and get transferred the same in its name. It is made clear if the abovesaid amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.08.2024

                                                                 President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                        Member