DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this 18^th  day of June 2024

Filed on: 16-03-2016

PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu - President
Shri. V. Ramachandran - Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N - Member

C.C. No. 167/ 2016

COMPLAINANT
Amanulla K.H., S/o. Hussain Badri, 6/367 (5/295) Kavunkal House, Kanjiramattom, Amballoor Panchayath, Marithazham, Ernakulam.

(By Adv.Antony Shyju, North Towers, Ernakulam, E.S.I. Road, Kochi-682 018)

V/s

THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort Mumbai, Maharastra-40001, represented by its Chief Executive Officer.

(op 1 rep. by Adv.Jithin Paul Varghese, Lawyers & Consultants, 1^st Floor, Building No.68/1697, St.Benedict Road, Ernakulam, Kochi-18)

2. Popular Mega Motors (India) Ltd. Trinity Towers, Changattu Road, Palarivattom, Kochi - 682 025, represented by its authorised officer.

(op 2 rep. by Adv.K.K.M.Sheriff, Sheriff Associates, Kochi-11)

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, involves a complainant who has earned his livelihood as a taxi driver for the past 10 years. He purchased a brand-new Iris vehicle from the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 2,72,696/-, with the 1st opposite party being the manufacturer. The purchase was influenced by advertisements from the 1st opposite party. The vehicle, delivered on 28.11.2014, began showing mechanical defects within a month. The complainant financed the vehicle with a loan from Canara Bank at 20% interest.

From the first month, the vehicle showed engine defects. Despite multiple repairs by the 2nd opposite party, the issues persisted. The engine was repaired twice within a short period. Other customers of the same vehicle model faced similar issues, many of whom are taxi drivers relying on the vehicle for their livelihood. The complainant, using the vehicle to transport Thejus employees, experienced significant difficulties and had to rent a friend's vehicle at Rs. 250/- per day to meet contractual obligations.

Repeated attempts to repair the vehicle by the opposite parties failed to resolve the engine issues. An estimate from another dealer indicated a repair cost of over Rs. 10,000/-. The cause of action includes multiple instances of vehicle failure from the purchase date to March 2016.

The complainant requests the commission to:

1. Direct the opposite parties to refund the entire amount of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest.
2. Award Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused by the defective vehicle and deficient service.
3. Reimburse Rs. 25,000/- paid to rent a friend's vehicle.
4. Award the cost of the proceedings from the opposite parties and their assets.

2) NOTICE

The Commission issued a notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and submitted their versions.

3) THE VERSION OF THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY

Tata Motors Limited is a renowned manufacturer of commercial vehicles and passenger cars, known for quality. Vehicles undergo stringent quality checks and road trials before commercial production. Vehicles are inspected and approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). Authorized dealers sell and service the vehicles, maintaining a network of 145 authorized dealers and 780 Tata Authorized Service Centers (TASC).

Tata Motors denies all allegations in the complaint unless specifically admitted. The company claims the complaint is an abuse of process, vague, baseless, and made with malafide intent.

The complaint is not maintainable and fails to qualify as a 'consumer dispute' under the Consumer Protection Act. Allegations of manufacturing defects are not supported by an expert report as required under the Act. The complaint is frivolous and intended to harass Tata Motors.

The vehicle requires mandatory servicing and replacement of specified components at recommended intervals. The complainant failed to follow maintenance guidelines, which voids the warranty. The vehicle has been extensively used (39,726 kms in 16 months), indicating it is roadworthy. Complaints raised were routine maintenance issues, not indicative of manufacturing defects.

The vehicle reported multiple times for routine services and minor repairs, all attended to under warranty. No engine repairs were conducted; only minor issues were resolved.

The complaint does not establish a manufacturing defect or deficiency in service. The commission lacks jurisdiction as the issues require detailed evidence and trials suited for a civil court. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for being false, frivolous, and vexatious.

Tata Motors asserts the complaint merits dismissal with costs as it fails to make out a prima facie case against them. Tata Motors requests the dismissal of the complaint with costs due to lack of merit and evidence.

4) THE VERSION OF THE 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY

The complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the vehicle was used for commercial purposes. They assert that the complaint should be dismissed on this ground.

The complainant bought a TATA Magic Iris vehicle from the second opposite party on 28/11/2014. However, the claim that the vehicle was purchased for earning a livelihood as a driver is denied.

The complainant approached the opposite party to inquire about the vehicle, and the claim that an officer persuaded the complainant to buy the vehicle is denied. Claims of mechanical defects within a month are denied. The first reported issue was on 07/02/2015, and it was rectified free of charge. Subsequent services and repairs were provided, with defects addressed promptly.

The second opposite party denies the complainant's claim of a 20% interest loan from Canara Bank and asserts that the vehicle was defect-free at the time of delivery. They detailed the service history, including free labour services and minor repairs, and addressed claims of ongoing defects promptly and under warranty or goodwill.

The warranty expired on 28/11/2015, with an extended warranty covering only specific parts. Some repairs were made on a goodwill basis despite the warranty status. Claims regarding hiring another vehicle and sustaining mental agony are denied. The complainant’s vehicle was used extensively and profitably, indicating no significant issues.

The second opposite party states that no unfair trade practices or service deficiencies were committed and that the complainant filed the complaint to harass and pressurize them. They stated that the complaint lacks bona fides and should be dismissed with compensatory costs awarded to the second opposite party.

The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with 8 documents, marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-8.

• Exhibit A1: Tax Invoice No. PopMMo-1415-3284 dated 28.11.2014 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A2: Extended warranty dated 22.12.2014.
• Exhibit A3: Tax Invoice No. PopMgm-CPl-1516-01529 dated 6.7.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A4: Tax Invoice No. PopMgm-Cpl-1415-06762 dated 12.03.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A5: Service Checklist/Job Order dated 6.7.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A6: Service Checklist/Job Order dated 26.11.2015 issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A7: Certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle No. KL-39 G 9508 Tata Magic Iris.
• Exhibit A8: Estimate/quotation dated 8.3.2016 issued by Focus Motors.

The first opposite party submitted one document, which is marked as Exhibit B-1. The second opposite party submitted six documents, marked as Exhibits B-2 to B-7.

• Exhibit B1: Copy of warranty terms and conditions of the 1st Opposite Party.
• Exhibit B2: Job Card No. 1489 and allied documents dated 04-07-2015.
• Exhibit B3: Job Card No. 1519 and allied documents dated 07-07-2015.
• Exhibit B4: Job Card No. 2361 and allied documents dated 01-09-2015.
• Exhibit B5: Job Card No. 3711 and allied documents dated 26-11-2015.
• Exhibit B6: Job Card No. 5335 and its appended documents.
• Exhibit B7: Job history of the vehicle maintained by TATA Motors.

5) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant.

iii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:

                           In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Tax Invoice dated 28.11.2014 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party, produced by the complainant as Exhibit A1, establishes that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.

                      The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parities.

Argument Note Filed by Sri. Antony Shyju, Counsel for the Complainant

The complainant has been a professional driver for the last 10 years and needed a vehicle to continue his profession. Initially, he rented various vehicles to carry passengers, but the high rent made it unsustainable. The complainant’s earnings were too low to cover his family expenses. Therefore, he purchased the vehicle from the opposite parties to reduce costs. After seeing advertisements by the opposite parties about a new vehicle, the complainant believed the product would be satisfactory and reduce his expenses. He purchased the "MAGIC IRIS" vehicle from the 2nd opposite party, the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party, who is the manufacturer.

To buy the vehicle, the complainant arranged a loan with an interest of 20% per annum from Canara Bank, Mulanthuruthy, amounting to Rs 2,77,696/-. The vehicle was registered and numbered KL 39 G 9508. The vehicle was intended to earn a livelihood, with assurances of fuel efficiency and suitability for his job. However, within a month, the complainant frequently visited the service centres of the 2nd opposite party for repairs. Initially, the vehicle had gear shifting issues, which were repeatedly repaired by the 2nd opposite party but never resolved, requiring frequent visits over a year.

Tax invoices for repairs dated 06.07.2015 (Exhibit A3) and 28.11.2014 (Exhibit A4) show recurrent vehicle defects. Despite routine visits, the opposite parties failed to provide a permanent solution. After six months, the vehicle started vibrating, making it difficult to carry passengers. This problem was reported, but no proper solution was provided. The opposite parties admitted the vibration issue but failed to address it effectively, indicating poor service and deficiency.

The exhaust pipes and silencers were replaced twice within a year, suggesting substandard materials used in manufacturing. It is unusual for exhaust brackets to break within six months, indicating poor quality parts. The opposite parties suggested an extended warranty after one year, which the complainant obtained and submitted as Exhibit A5. The extended warranty required regular servicing, showing the vehicle was continuously serviced and repaired, contradicting claims of neglect by the complainant.

The 1^st opposite party alleged mechanical issues needed expert opinion but admitted to non-compliance with periodic services. The extended warranty and frequent servicing prove the complainant met service conditions. The vehicle was repeatedly repaired for the same issue, showing inherent defects. The 1st opposite party’s claims is false and attempt to shift the blame onto the complainant.

The 2^nd opposite party's claim that the complainant is not a consumer is false. The vehicle was purchased for livelihood, not profit. The complainant had a contract with Thejas Daily for employee transportation, earning only a service charge. The cracked exhaust pipes and broken silencer were due to low-quality materials, indicating negligence in producing quality products. The service estimate (Exhibit A8) supports this.

Despite complying with all service guidelines, the opposite parties failed to address the vehicle’s issues. The complainant trusted the 1st opposite party's brand for quality but was deceived by false assurances. The complainant seeks compensation for the vehicle’s defects and the losses incurred in his job due to mechanical problems. Therefore, it is prayed that this commission allows the complaint and imposes exemplary costs on the opposite parties.

Argument Note Filed by Sri. Jithin Paul Varghese, Counsel for the 1st Opposite Party.

The complaint is frivolous, misconceived, and based on misleading facts, and should be dismissed as it lacks merit.

The complaint claims that the Tata Iris vehicle, purchased from the 2nd Opposite Party and manufactured by the 1st Opposite Party, has manufacturing defects. The complainant seeks reimbursement and compensation.

The 1^st Opposite Party, as the vehicle manufacturer, has already filed a version of the facts and produced warranty details as Exhibit B1. As of 14.03.2016, the vehicle had covered 39,726 km, indicating substantial use by the complainant. The vehicle was first brought for repair on 07.02.2015 for overheating, which was resolved. Subsequent repairs were properly handled by the dealer. The warranty terms specify repair or replacement of defective parts within the warranty period, excluding normal wear and tear or damage due to negligent use.

The complaint lacks specific details about the alleged defects. It vaguely claims engine and mechanical issues within one month of purchase but provides no evidence of service within that period. Although the complainant filed a proof affidavit, it was not substantiated through examination, and the evidence was closed on 03.04.2018 without further steps to reopen it. The complainant has not proven any financial loss or rental costs incurred due to the vehicle's issues.

The burden of proving a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant, who has not provided expert evidence as required under Section 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Expert opinion is essential to establish a manufacturing defect, as outlined by the Hon'ble NCDRC in relevant cases. The complainant has not produced any document to prove such a defect. The repairs performed were routine for a vehicle used extensively, and the complainant is not entitled to a reimbursement of the entire vehicle cost without proving the defect.

The complaint should be dismissed with exemplary costs, as it lacks substantial evidence and fails to prove the alleged manufacturing defect.

Argument Notes Submitted by the Second Opposite Party.

The evidence in this case consists solely of documentary evidence, with no oral testimony. The complainant has marked Exhibits A1 to A8. The 1st Opposite Party marked Exhibit B1, while the 2nd Opposite Party produced and marked Exhibits B2 to B7. The service history shows the complainant failed to service the vehicle after 19-10-2016. The 2nd Opposite Party doubts the complainant has the vehicle in his custody, which is why it wasn't submitted for expert examination, and he avoided oral testimony and cross-examination.

The complainant alleges a manufacturing defect but failed to take measures under Section 38 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to prove this. Upon receiving the summons, both Opposite Parties filed their respective versions.

The 2^nd  Opposite Party argues the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a "consumer" under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes. The complainant hasn't produced documents to prove his qualification to drive the vehicle, making the complaint liable for dismissal on this ground alone.

The 2^nd  Opposite Party acknowledges the complainant purchased a TATA Magic Iris vehicle on 28/11/2014. However, the complainant failed to prove that the vehicle exhibited mechanical defects within one month of purchase, as the first report was only on 07-02-2015, after 6311 km, for a coolant leak, which was fixed free of charge. The claim of a 20% interest loan from Canara Bank is also unproven.

The vehicle, delivered defect-free, was inspected and certified by a TATA service engineer. The complainant couldn't prove the vehicle had engine defects in December 2014. Despite producing a tax invoice dated 28-11-2014, the actual invoice is from 12-03-2015 for a different job card.

The vehicle received its first scheduled labour-free service on 12-03-2015 after 10,003 km, with the complainant paying Rs. 1,296/- for materials. The second scheduled free labor service was on 04-07-2015 after 19,541 km, addressing a gear slipping complaint. All concerns were rectified under warranty.

On 07-07-2015, the vehicle was again reported with a gear slipping issue, and the transaxle was repaired free of charge under warranty. This was confirmed by a joint test ride. On 01-09-2015, an exhaust muffler crack was repaired free of charge. During the third scheduled service on 26-11-2015, steering, engine mounting, and clutch cable issues were addressed.

On 14-03-2016, after 39,726 km, a silencer muffler complaint was found to be due to negligent maintenance by the complainant. Despite the warranty expiring on 28-11-2015, the 2nd Opposite Party replaced the silencer muffler assembly on goodwill.

Exhibit B7 shows the vehicle was serviced by Focus Motors from 11-06-2016 to 19-10-2016, indicating only routine maintenance. The complainant didn't prove the hire vehicle claim, suggesting he no longer possesses the vehicle.

The 2^nd Opposite Party asserts that the vehicle does not have any defects as alleged, and any minor defects are due to normal wear and tear from extensive use without proper maintenance. Claims about other vehicle owners being affected are unfounded and meant to elicit sympathy. The complainant's claim for hiring a vehicle and suffering mental agony is unproven, and after covering over 55,000 km in nearly two years, the complainant filed this complaint for a refund with interest to coerce the Opposite Parties into complying with his demands.

The 2^nd  Opposite Party has not engaged in unfair trade practices or service deficiencies. They have fulfilled their duties according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The complaint is a means to harass the 2nd Opposite Party without cause of action, merit, or bona fides.

It is submitted that the complaint should be dismissed with costs awarded to the 2nd Opposite Party.

Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 in Appeal No. 1953 of 2005, Decided On, 25 February 2008, At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.AIR 2008 (NOC)2260(NCC).

“In this case, from day one onwards the vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by the dealer himself through his letters. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submissions filed by OP 1, there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. This is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.”

                        We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes.

                             The complainant, a professional driver for the last 10 years, purchased a Tata Magic Iris vehicle from the 2nd opposite party, authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party, Tata Motors Limited, for Rs. 2,72,696/-. The purchase was influenced by advertisements from the 1st opposite party. The vehicle, delivered on 28.11.2014, began showing mechanical defects within a month. The complainant financed the vehicle with a loan from Canara Bank at 20% interest.

1. Complainant's Claims: The complainant alleges that the vehicle had engine defects from the first month, necessitating multiple repairs by the 2nd opposite party, which were not satisfactorily resolved. The defects persisted, causing significant inconvenience and financial loss, including the need to rent another vehicle at Rs. 250/- per day. The complainant seeks:
   1. Refund of Rs. 3 lakhs with interest.
   2. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony.
   3. Reimbursement of Rs. 25,000/- paid to rent a friend's vehicle.
   4. Costs of the proceedings.
2. Opposite Parties' Défense:
   • 1st Opposite Party (Tata Motors Limited): Denies the allegations, stating the vehicle was extensively used (39,726 km in 16 months) and serviced regularly, indicating it was roadworthy. Claims of manufacturing defects are not supported by expert evidence. The complaint is termed frivolous and vexatious.
   • 2nd Opposite Party: Argues the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, and the complainant does not qualify as a "consumer." The vehicle was defect-free at delivery, and subsequent issues were addressed under warranty or goodwill.

Analysis and Legal Reasoning:

1. Maintainability of the Complaint: Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined as a person who buys goods for consideration. Exhibit A1 (Tax Invoice dated 28.11.2014) establishes that the complainant is a consumer, as the vehicle was purchased for earning a livelihood, not for commercial profit.
2. Deficiency in Service and Negligence: The complainant provided evidence of recurrent vehicle defects (Exhibits A3, A4). Despite multiple repairs, the defects persisted, indicating a deficiency in service. The 2nd opposite party's failure to provide a permanent solution despite acknowledging the issues (Exhibits A5, A6) constitutes negligence.
3. Expert Opinion and Manufacturing Defects: The 1st opposite party's argument that expert evidence is required to prove manufacturing defects is countered by the precedent set in Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, where persistent defects from day one was considered sufficient evidence of manufacturing defects. The complainant's continuous issues and the 1st opposite party's own admissions indicate inherent defects.
4. Liability of the Opposite Parties: Both opposite parties are liable for the complainant's grievances. The 1st opposite party, as the manufacturer, failed to ensure the vehicle's reliability, and the 2nd opposite party failed to provide adequate service and repairs.

                          The complainant has not substantiated the evidence to prove the expenses incurred, specifically the Rs. 25,000/- paid for renting another vehicle, as no bill was produced for the same. Consequently, we reject the claim for reimbursement of this amount.

                 The complainant, who relied on the vehicle to earn his livelihood, faced significant difficulties due to its persistent mechanical issues. Despite extensive use and regular servicing and repairs, the vehicle continued to malfunction, causing undue stress and financial hardship. This clearly points to a deficiency in service and suggests potential manufacturing defects. As the manufacturer, the 1st opposite party failed to ensure the vehicle's reliability, leaving the complainant stranded on multiple occasions. Additionally, the 2nd opposite party did not provide adequate service to resolve these ongoing problems.

                         We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence, the prayer is allowed as follows:

1. The opposite parties are directed to refund the complainant ₹ 2,72,696/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Six Only) towards the cost of the vehicle as evidenced by Exhibit A-1 (Invoice).
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay ₹40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and suffering. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
3. The opposite parties are directed to pay ₹15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards the cost of proceedings.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally mandated to comply with the directives mentioned above within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (16-03-2016) until the date of full payment realization.

The Opposite Parties shall have the liberty to reclaim the vehicle in question from the complainant within 30 days after complying with the above direction.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18^th  day of June 2024.

Sd/-                  

        D.B.Binu, President

          Sd/-

                   V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                Sd/-                  

                                                                             Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

                    Appendix

• Exhibit A1: Tax Invoice No. PopMMo-1415-3284 dated 28.11.2014 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A2: Extended warranty dated 22.12.2014.
• Exhibit A3: Tax Invoice No. PopMgm-CPl-1516-01529 dated 6.7.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A4: Tax Invoice No. PopMgm-Cpl-1415-06762 dated 12.03.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A5: Service Checklist/Job Order dated 6.7.2015 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A6: Service Checklist/Job Order dated 26.11.2015 issued by the 1st Opposite Party.
• Exhibit A7: Certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle No. KL-39 G 9508 Tata Magic Iris.
• Exhibit A8: Estimate/quotation dated 8.3.2016 issued by Focus Motors.

The first opposite party submitted one document, which is marked as Exhibit B-1. The second opposite party submitted six documents, marked as Exhibits B-2 to B-7.

• Exhibit B1: Copy of warranty terms and conditions of the 1st Opposite Party.
• Exhibit B2: Job Card No. 1489 and allied documents dated 04-07-2015.
• Exhibit B3: Job Card No. 1519 and allied documents dated 07-07-2015.
• Exhibit B4: Job Card No. 2361 and allied documents dated 01-09-2015.
• Exhibit B5: Job Card No. 3711 and allied documents dated 26-11-2015.
• Exhibit B6: Job Card No. 5335 and its appended documents.

           Exhibit B7: Job history of the vehicle maintained by TATA Motors

uk