IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day March, 2023.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 36/2020 (Filed on 15-02-2020)
Petitioner : Maniyan Nair M.M.
S/o. Madhavan Pillai,
Valamattathinkara House,
Vadakkenirappu P.O.
Neezhoor, Kottayam – 686612
(Adv. Jacob Ben Abraham)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) M/s. TATA Motor Ltd.
Fortune Summit Towers,
2nd Floor # 244, Hosur
Main Road, Bangaluru
Pin – 560068.
(Adv. V. Krishna Menon and
Adv. M.K. Jose)
(2) M/s. M.K. Motors,
Kodimatha, Kottayam
Pin – 686013
Rep. by its Manager
(Automotive Division,
Malankara Plantation Ltd.)
(Adv. Siby Chenappady)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act 1986
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant is the registered owner of vehicle having Registration Number KL.67 B 3696, Tata Tiago XZ 1.2 RTNBS4 car. The complainant booked the car manufactured by the first opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the second opposite party on 02-02-2019. On 21.02.2019 the second opposite party delivered the car bearing Chasis No.MAT626281JKA05282 and Engine No.REVTRNO2ARYK02637 to the complainant after receiving an amount of Rs 5,84,513/-.
The complainant being a religious person informed the second opposite party to give the delivery of the car between 11.30 am and 12pm,noon. The complainant reached the delivery place before 11.30 AM to receive the vehicle but the second opposite party delivered the vehicle in a hurry after 11.55 AM without giving the complainant a chance to inspect the delivered vehicle or its documents. When the complainant perused the original documents after two days of delivery it was noticed that the manufacturing date of the vehicle was January 2018.The vehicle was also having some manufacturing defect on its body. There is a major crack in the LH Boot Lid gas struct connector to the vehicle. There are some painting brush marks and paint drip down marks on engine stay. The steering mount controls are not working properly. The battery in the vehicle has been charged in the year 2017 and there are some leakages in battery water. Instead of alloy wheels, the vehicle was provided with fake alloy wheels named smoke alloy similar to that of wheel cup.
The complainant contacted the second opposite party and notified all these
aspects and also had given an email to the customer care of the first opposite party. Thereafter the complainant caused legal notice to both the parties stating the defects and demanding a replacement of the vehicle with brand new 2019 model vehicle for the given price or to refund the purchase amount. But the opposite parties failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. Due to this unfair trade practice and deficiency in service done by the opposite parties the complainant and family suffered much mental agony and several inconvenience and hardships. This complaint is filed for getting a replacement of the car with a brand new car of 2019 model car for the given price or to get a refund of Rs.5,84,513/- and for allowing a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the hardships, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- as cost for this litigation.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
The version of the first opposite party is that the vehicle purchased by the
complainant is of highest quality and the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle after being satisfied with its conditions and performance. The vehicle was
delivered after having the Pre - Delivery inspection by the Dealer. All the vehicles/cars manufactured by the first opposite party are marketed only after the proto type of the vehicle/car is being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. The allegations of the complainant with respect to crack in
the LH Boot gas struct connector to the vehicle, painting brush marks and paints
drip down marks on the engine stay, steering mount controls are not working properly, and leakage in battery water are without any bonafides and as an afterthought. The wheels provided are as per the company brochure for this model of vehicle. This opposite party had not received any email complaint from the complainant. Though the complainant had been requested to take the vehicle to the workshop of the second opposite party for enabling them to inspect the vehicle and do the needful if found necessary, the complainant had not taken the car to the workshop of the second opposite party. There is no defect or manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.
The version of the second opposite party is as follows. The complainant booked the car on 02.02.2019 and it was not possible to provide a 2019 model car on the first month’s of 2019 and all matters regarding manufacturing date was disclosed to the complainant. The car delivered is a defect free one. The complaints about steering mount controls, battery, connector etc. are denied. The smoke alloy wheel was selected by the complainant. The complaint is filed on 15 October 2019.The complainant met with an accident on August 2019 and caused serious damages to the car. Major parts were repaired and replaced. The complainant is using this as chance to replace the car with a brand new car. The complainant had not contacted the second opposite party or raised any complaints. The complainant had no cause of action against the second opposite party. The complaint should be dismissed with compensatory cost.
On the application of the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed for the examination of the vehicle.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Documents as Exhibits A1 to A10.The Expert commissioner report was marked as Ext C1. Jithin K.V, Customer care Manager of the first opposite party filed proof affidavit in Lieu of chief Examination. Jain Elias, Legal Manager of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 and B2.
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence
adduced it is evident that the complainant made a booking of a Tata Tiago car with the second opposite party vide Ext A1 (e) on 2.02.2019. The second opposite party issued Ext A1 Performa Invoice on 4.02.2019 to the complainant with on road price Rs.5, 97,043/-, corporate offer Rs.2,000/- and Total amount as Rs.5,95,043/- with the following conditions
1. Price quoted above is current and subject to change without notice
2. Price prevailing at the time of invoicing shall only be applicable
3. Delivery as per priority subject to availability of stock
4.Price quoted above is exclusive of registration and other miscellaneous
expenses.
The second opposite party then delivered the Tata Tiago XZ 1.2RTN BS4
vehicle with Chassis Number MAT626281JKA05282 and Engine Number REVTRN02ARYK02637 to the complainant on 21.02.2019.The complainant remitted Rs.5, 42,307/- vide Ext A1 (h) Tax Invoice dated 20.02.2019. The Month
and Year of Manufacture of the vehicle is January 2018 as per Ext A1 (b) Registration Certificate.
The Expert commissioner had inspected the vehicle on 9/01.2021 and as per the Ext C1 report of the Expert commissioner, the glass year marking of the vehicle is 2017,The tyre manufacturing Year is 2017,The Battery manufacturing date is 13/12/2017, and Year and month of the manufacture of the Chassis is January 2018.The Expert commissioner also reported of having found a Sealant crack at the body end which may be due to manufacturing defect and Painting brush marks were found on the timing side mount of the engine, the steering mounted audio system shows malfunctioning.
From the above findings in Ext A1 (b), A1 (h) and Ext C1 it is clear that the opposite parties delivered a 2018 model vehicle to the complainant on 21.02.2019.
The third condition given in the Ext A1 proforma Invoice issued by the second opposite party on 4.02.2019 to the complainant is that the delivery of the vehicle is as per priority subject to the availability of stock. This is a clear condition that a vehicle made available to the second opposite party in stock after 4.02.2019 will be delivered to the complainant as per the booking priority. This shows that the second opposite party agreed to give a 2019 model vehicle to the complainant.
It is pertinent to note that the second opposite party had not disclosed the Year of manufacture of the vehicle to the complainant in the Ext A1 (e) Receipt Voucher issued for the Advance Booking Amount on 2.02.2019. Moreover the year of Manufacture of the vehicle is not provided in the Ext B1 Commitment form dated 1.02.2019 produced by the second opposite party. From the above facts, it is evident that the second opposite party deliberately withheld the fact that a 2018 model vehicle will be delivered to the complainant.
It is clear that the opposite parties failed to deliver a 2019 model vehicle to the complainant, which had reached the stock of the second opposite party after 4.02.2019 as per the given conditions in Ext A1 proforma Invoice. The opposite parties had delivered a 2018 model vehicle to the complainant contrary to the conditions given in Ext A1 proforma Invoice. This act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as per the Consumer protection Act 1986.Even though the complainant claimed for a replacement of the vehicle with a new 2019 model vehicle, the complainant failed to prove inherent manufacturing defect for the given vehicle. On the basis of the above findings we allow the complaint in part and pass the following orders.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation
for the mental agony and hardships and inconvenience caused to the complainant along with cost Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest per annum till realization. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of March, 2023
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of proforma invoice dtd.04-02-19
A1(a) Copy of policy
A1(b)- Copy of certificate of registration (KL-67-B-3696)
A1(c) – Copy of e-mail communication
A1(d) – Copy of receipt dtd.21-02-19 by Motor vehicle department
A1(e) – Copy of receipt voucher No.2515
A1( f)- Copy of receipt voucher No.2628
A(g) Copy of temporary registration certificate
A(h) – Copy of tax invoice dtd.20-02-2019 issued by opposite party
A(i)- Copy of welcome letter dtd.20-02-2019
A2 – Demand notice dtd.03-04-16 by Adv. K.R. Rajesh to opposite parties
A3 series – AD card (2 nos.)
A4 series – Postal receipts (2 nos.)
A5- Copy of letter dtd.12-04-19 by Tata Motors
A6 – Letter dtd.24-04-19 by Adv. K.R. Rajesh to opposite party
A7 – Postal receipt
A8- Postal AD card
A9 – Invoice dtd.05-11-21 by Bikon battery & power systems
A10- Invoice dtd.10-03-21 by Alan Tyres
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of commitment form issued by 2nd opposite party
B2 – Copy of satisfaction note issued by 2nd opposite party
Commission Report
C1 – Inspection report by Tisson George Michael
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
