Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/738/2018

Manoj Apreja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400001 - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Pankaj Chandgothia & Sapna Vasudeva Adv.

27 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	738 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	26.12.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	27.12.2021

 

 

 

 

 

Manoj Apreja s/o Sh.Prakash Chandra, R/o H.No.541-GF, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh 160036

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  TATA Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001 through its M.D.

2]  Berkeley Tata Motors (RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through is MD

3]  Berkeley Tata Motors (RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No.24, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through Sales Manager

4]  Berkeley Tata Motors (RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No.40, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through is MD

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

        

 

 

Argued by: -   None for the complainant

                Sh.Ivaan Singh Khosla, Adv. for OP No.1.

                Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OP No.2.

                OPs No.3 & 4 exparte

 

PER  PRITI  MALHOTRA,  MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant purchased a Tata Tiago XZ Car (Revotron 1.2 L Petrol) from OPs No.2 to 4, manufactured by OP NO.1, on 27.11.2017 at a price of Rs.5,35,000/- carrying extended warranty of two years and it has been duly insured (Ann.C-1 to C-3).  It is stated that the car was not running satisfactorily from the first month itself and inspite of being a brand new car, it had very low pickup and took few minutes to start accelerating to the required speed.  It is further stated that the Steering Wheel of the car was too tight and stiff that the complainant had to struggle at the time of turning as it was not smooth inspite of being a power steering.  It is pleaded that there were many other defects in the normal functioning of the car, such as wiper of the car were erratic and did not work smoothly at the time of rain, even the rain water seeped into the car from the front doors during rains, heavy engine noise could be heard inside the cabin, the seal belt sensor did not work properly and sometimes it kept sounding even after buckling of the seat belt; the claimed mileage of 24-27 kms per liter were never achieved by the vehicle, rather the same was only 11/12 kms per liter.  It is also pleaded that the complainant reported all the said defects in the vehicle to the OP Workshop at the time of service, but the OPs neither recorded his complaints nor rectified the same (Ann.C-6 & C-7).  It is further pleaded that the complainant never signed satisfaction vouchers as none of his complaints have been resolved till date.  Stated that the complainant got recorded all his complaints in writing on Job Slip on 14.11.2018 during the warranty period  (Ann.C-9), apart from apprising the OPs time and again  about  such defect, but the OPs failed to rectify the same.  It is submitted that the purpose of purchasing a new car has been defeated due to so many defects, which could not be set right by the OPs despite taking the vehicle for about 10 times and that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the car or that the car is a re-conditioned one. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OP No.1 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the relationship exists between OPs is on principal to principal basis and answering OP cannot be held liable for any independent act or omissions of OP No.2.  It is denied that the vehicle in question was not running satisfactory from the first month.  It is stated that the complainant has brought the vehicle in question in Dec., 2017 for accidental repair.  Then the vehicle was brought in January, 2018 with the problem of tyre cut and repair job was done under Goodwill basis. Subsequently the vehicle in question was brought on 24.1.2018 for First Free Service and the complainant has not reported any problem in the vehicle.  Thereafter, the vehicle in question was met with major accident in March, 2018 and various parts were replaced.  It is submitted that the complainant approached OP No.2 on 1.6.2018 for Second Free Service and AC cooling insufficient, but complainant has not recorded any noise problem.  It is stated that per ann.C-9, the complainant reported complaint of Low Mileage, Cabin Noise, Pick-up Low, belt Sensor Check, Wiper Adjust, Steering Tight and Fr. Door Bidding. However, as per record, only 3^rd Free Service was carried out and Wheel Alignment was done and since no repairs were required, the same was not carried out. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  It is submitted that the onus is on the complainant to prove his allegations by submitting cogent evidence. It is also submitted that the vehicle in question was brought thrice for accidental repairs and thrice for availing free service.  Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

         OP No.2 has also filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the car of the complainant was repaired for accidental damages on three occasions i.e. on 5.12.2017, 31.3.2018 and 6.10.2018, apart from carrying out all three free services and change of tyre (Ann.R-2/2 & R-2/3).  It is stated that neither there is any defect in the vehicle much less inherent manufacturing defect nor any such defect has occurred in the vehicle till date.  As far as the logistic charges are concerned, the same are charged on account of various expenses incurred by a car dealer in maintaining the vehicle till handing over the vehicle to the customer and the dealer has right to charge the same from the customer (Ann.R-2/4 & R-2/5). It is stated that on 14.11.2018 the complainant lodged complaint of steering tight, however, no such defect was found.  As far as the allegation of visit of the vehicle in question to the workshop for 10 times is concerned, it is clarified that out of the total 9 visits till date from 27.11.2017, the 3 visits were for 3 free services, 3 visits were for accidental repair and 3 visits for company campaign on which the complainant had lodged minor complaints, which were duly rectified or duly attended by answering OP.  It is denied that the vehicle is suffering from any manufacturing defect.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OP No.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.3.2019.

 

3]       The parties have led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record including written arguments.

5]       The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands.  The complainant has concealed & suppressed the material information about his car being repaired for accidental damages during first year of its purchase i.e. on 5.12.2017, 31.3.2018 and 6.10.2018 as is proved from Service history Ann.R-2/2 (Page 49 to 51).   Moreover, the perusal of the record reveals that OP Service Centre has duly provided all services including free service to the complainant in respect of his car in question and also done accidental repairs from time to time. 

6]       The complainant has not brought forward any cogent evidence regarding the allegations set out in his complaint about manufacturing defect in the car.  No expert opinion has been made part of the record by the complainant to establish the allegations of inherent manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant. As the complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the car, the onus is on the complainant to prove such allegations by producing expert evidence to that effect.  In this view of the matter, no deficiency in service is attributable towards the OPs.

7]      From the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.  Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.     

Announced

27^th December 2021                                                                                                                                                       sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER