BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

 DISTRICT EAST SIANG

ARUNACHAL PRADESH: PASIGHAT

CP CASE NO. 03/2016

 Judgment is ready and pronounced in the open court.

     In the result, it is held that there was deficiency and negligence on the part of the defendant No. 1,2,3,4 and 5, Accordingly, opposite Party/defendant shall pay Rs 3, 79,370/-(Three Lakhs seventy nine thousand three hundred seventy only) along with @6% interest Per/Annum from the date of purchased or a new vehicle of same model to the complainant within a period of two month from the date of Judgment and also a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs Should be  paid to the complainant for causes great harassment, mental agony and loss of the valuable time and money of the complainant.

          Judgment is enclosed in separate sheet.

                                The case shall stand disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION:

 DISTRICT EAST SIANG

ARUNACHAL PRADESH: PASIGHAT

CP CASE NO. 03/2016

1. Smti Nung Darang

Daughter of Shri Takar Darang,

Resident of village Rani

P.O & P.S. Pasighat,

District East Siang,

Arunachal Pradesh.

___________Complainant___________

 ____________v/s_________________     

1. The Tata Motors Limited

20^th Floor Tower 2A,

One Indiabulls Centre,

841, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstore Road,

Mumbai-400013,      Maharastra.

2. General Manager

Bucho Motors Pvt.Ltd.

Tata Motors Commercial Vehicle dealer

Zinging colony, Papunalah

Naharlagun-791110.

3. Authorized Sub-Dealer,

Bucho Motors Pvt.Ltd.

P.O.Pasighat

East Siang Dist.

4. The Manager,

Bucho Motors Pvt.Ltd.

Zinging colony, Papunalah

Naharlagun-791110.

5. Mr.Kipa Babu Proprietor

Bucho Motors Pvt.Ltd.

Zinging colony, Papunalah

Naharlagun-791110.

P R E S E N T

JUDGEMENT ORDER

1. The instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant Smty Nung Darang seeking relief under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act by way of compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the respondent the Tata Motors limited & others.
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant on 19-03-2014 purchased one ARTIC- WHITE DSL BSIII, B (2+3+3) STR TATA MAGIC bearing chassis No. MAT445117DVP82003, Engine No. 275IDI06. MWYS6734,class of the vehicle SCV, Maker’s Name TATA MOTOR LTD. Horse Power or Cubic Capacity 702 CC, fuel used DIESSEL, No. of  Cylinders 2, Month and year of Manufacture Dex-2013,seating capacity including driver 1+7, unladed weight (kg) 1000, color artic white,  Gross weight(kg) 1600, Catalytic converter PASENGER from BUCHO MOTORS PVT. LTD. Authorized Dealer of Tata Motor Ltd. Commercial vehicle dealer situated at Zingang Colony, Papunalah, Naharlagun-791110, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh by paying its total consideration price of Rs. 3,79,370.00/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred seventy) through transfer NEFT/Done vide saving Bank A/C BEARING No. 100000289503 vide your invoice No. BuchoM-1314-00336 in cash.
3. That after purchasing the said vehicle and running for about Two months, it has been detected by the complainant, that the engine of the said vehicle is suffering from premature burn off and consumption of abnormal and excessive engine oil.
4. That the complainant accordingly 1-06-2014 complained about the said defect to the Manager, Bucho Motor (Tata Motors), Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh i,e. the opposite party No. 5 instructed the complainant  to make complainant before the oppo. Party No. 2, 3,&4 and accordingly the complainant on 6-6-2014 made complainant to the oppo Parties No. 3 &4 by handing over the said.
5. That while complainant was eagerly waiting for replacement for a new engine or a new vehicle as assured by the opp. Parties and mainly by the opp. Party No. 3. That, surprisingly on 13-07-2014 the opp. party No. 4 along with opp. party No. 6, after about a month brought back the said vehicle to the SUB-DEALER, BUCHO MOTORS (TATA MOTORS), Pasighat. i.e. the opp. party No. 5 by stating that the vehicle has no any defect/ fault. That the opp. Party no. 4 and opp. Party No. 6 requested the complainant to run the vehicle for at least one month and if any fault/defect is found within a period of one month then surely there will be replacement with a new vehicle.
6. That the complainant also served a notice through his Lawyer on 21-08-2015 narrating all the facts and circumstances above and calling upon the opp. Parties to replace the said vehicle or replace the defective engine with a new one or else to return the price of the vehicle i.e Rs. 3,79,370.00/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Three Hundred seventy) only with interest of 18% per annum within 15 days from the date of received of the notice, but no meaningful response was given to him and the clam of the complainant was repudiated by the General Manager Pvt. Ltd. ( Tata Motors) Commercial vehicle Dealer, Zinging, Papu Nallah, Naharlagun, District Papumpare vide their reply dated 5-9-2015.

         On the basis of the parties, the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the complainant petition is maintainable in law and facts?
2. Whether the consumer commission has the jurisdiction to entertain try and adjudicate the complaint?
3. Whether there is any manufacturing defect in the said Motor Vehicle as alleged by the complaint?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service liable?
5. Whether the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as claimed for in the complainant petition?

After framing of issues the petitioner Smty Nung Darang adduced her evidences PW-1 by filling evidence on affidavit where, she had repeated the same as mentioned in her pleadings.

          However, the counsel for the opposite party No. 2 to 5 further submitted that they will no more contest the case and the court may pass whatever order as deem fit and proper. Therefore, defendant No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are debarred from cross examination as they have already decided not to contest the case.

#The court heard both sides and perused the entire materials on records. At the very outset. This court is of the view that the suit is maintainable in the present form of the CPA 2019 under section 39(b)ci)(d) and the opposite party is responsible to replace the same with a new one car along with @6% per annum of Rs. 3,79,370(Three Lakhs seventy nine thousand three hundreds seventy only)  from the date of purchased and also a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs Should be  paid to the complainant for causes great harassment, mental agony and loss of the valuable time and money of the complainant.   

          Judgment is delivered in the open court on this 06^th day of September 2023 under the court room with seal of forum member.