SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this case seeking relief to replace the car which was sold to the complainant with a new car besides a sum of Rs.99000/- as mental and physical strain with cost Rs.1000/-
Brief facts of complainant's case is that
The complainant purchased a car which is manufactured and marketed by Tata motors limited in the year 2010 by paying huge amount. According to the complainant she purchased the vehicle believing the offers given by the representatives of the manufacturer that a mileage of 26 km per litre and its strength and other quality features like low maintenance charge and complaint free for years from the date of purchase. But from the 3rd day of its use, there were recurrent problems arised in the vehicle which were not able to manage successfully by the service personal attached to 2nd OP, who seems to be the authorised service centre of Tata motors, and they were forced to keep the vehicle in shed due to its recurring problems. that on the 3rd day of purchase its 3 tyres got damaged and though service was provided in that respect again tyre got damaged after 10,000 kilometres. .There was no mileage as offered by the manufacturer and the 2nd OP gave hope to the effect that the same will be achieved gradually that gear system was never smooth and convenient, inspite of service rendered to the vehicle. Its air conditioner was not working properly and for repairing the above said defects, the complainants had spent huge amount of money within 2 years from the date of purchase and because of the above defects, the vehicle became off road and was forced to keep it in shed. The complainant alleged that all those defects arised because of manufacturing defect. So she wants to replace the car with a new one .Thereafter those works Complainant sent registered notice to opposite parties detailing the sufferings met by her consequent to the vehicle but they denied the facts averred in the notice that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for recurring the problems of the vehicle and they are liable to replace the car which is not working properly due to manufacturing defects. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting new car with compensation and cost.
2nd opposite party filed a version stating that the complainant purchased a Fiat Linea card from them. But denied the allegations of the complaint that the offers made by the representatives of the manufacturer like the vehicle is having mileage of 26 km /lr. etc and also assured that no service is required for the vehicle at least for 5 years and further alleged that the 3rd day of purchase, 3 tyres got damaged etc are utter false and further denied the complainant has been suffering due to the recurrent problems to the vehicle. The 2nd Op says that the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects and if there is any damaged caused it is due to the rough use or the mode of handling the vehicle without any care and caution, not only these defects can be rectified with proper service, so there is no question of replacing the vehicle. This Op denied that the 3rd day of purchase, its 3 tyres got damaged and though service was provided in that respect, again tyre damaged after 10,000 kilo meters. Apart from the mileage and other problems as stated above there are so many other problems which are causing panic . Gear system was never smooth and convenient, in spite of the service rendered to the vehicle. Its air conditioner is not working properly, as directed by the dealer complainant had to spend a huge amount for providing fresh shock absorber and the battery is changed within 2 years from the purchase are false. The 2nd Op says that the complainant approached him for service they done all the repair work with pleasure and great care and the complainant enjoyed all the benefits of warranty period and three free services and complainant is much satisfied services. The allegations in the complaint that she had to spend a huge amount for the repair of the car within 2 years from the date of purchase and every payment was made under the expectation that the vehicle will become alright etc are false and that the complainant had send a lawyer notice to him demanding to replace the vehicle alleging false concocted stories and 2nd Op had send a detailed reply for the same, that there is no deficiency of service , unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of this Op and prays the dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite parties 1&3 filed joint version says that this opposite parties have unnecessarily been made a party to the proceedings and the relevant point of time were marketing the cars manufactured by Fiat India Ltd and they would not become the manufacturer of the said car. The complainant however for reasons made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings, the relationship between these opposite parties and the 2nd Op is of principle to principle and in no way liable or responsible for the alleged transactions between the complainant and the 2nd OP. That the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, that the warranty offered on every vehicle is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as contained in the operator’s service book, hence the complainant cannot claim services as per the terms and conditions of the warranty policy that the vehicle purchased by the complainant , is of the highest quality and being satisfied with the condition of the vehicle and its performance. It is submitted that the said vehicle was delivered after carrying out pre-delivery Inspection(in short,PDI) by the dealer.. That the vehicle as attended by the opposite party’s dealer/service points fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer regarding quality and performance of the vehicle. That the complaint alleging manufacturing problems in the vehicle without having produced any expert opinion/documentary proof in the for m of evidence to prove that the subject vehicle suffers from the problems as alleged or to establish any manufacturing defect in the car. That the onus lies on the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated under sec.14 can be given for the defect in goods supplies or deficiency in service provided to the complainant. The opposite parties 1&3 never instructed any such assurance as alleged by the complaint , since mileage in a vehicle depends on various factors such as road condition, driving habits, load of the vehicle etc, that complainant had taken her vehicle to the workshop of the 2nd OP/other authorized workshop of these Ops at no point of time had she complained of any major complaint in the vehicle nor had the service personnel in the workshop . On all these occasions the complainant had taken her vehicle either for attending to the periodic services or for attending to certain running repairs which were only minor in nature. Further on each occasion the complainant used to take delivery of the vehicle after being convinced of the work done and expressing satisfaction over the same. That these Ops further states that during the aforementioned period at no point of time had the complainant ever complained of any problems with the tyres of the vehicle nor had the service personnel noticed any such complaints with the tyres as alleged. Assuming without admitting that the tyres of the vehicle had developed some complaints it is submitted that in terms with the warranty applicable for the vehicle, for ancillary parts such as tyres etc the concerned manufacturer can only look into the alleged complaints and do the needful wherever necessary. That there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant that these Ops are in no way liable or responsible to compensate the complainant for the alleged loss etc , that there is no deficiency of service , unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of this Op and prays the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant is not entitled either in law or on facts to seek replacement of the vehicle or for refund of the price of the vehicle since there is no manufacturing defect. There is no deficiency of service , unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of this Ops and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
The points to be decided in this case are
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?
Point No.1: In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased the car from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant's main allegations are that she purchased the car, believing the offers given by the representatives of the manufacturer that a mileage of 26 km per litre and its strength and other quality features like low maintenance charge and complaint free for years from the date of purchase. But from the 3rd day of its use, there were recurrent problems arised in the vehicle such as 1) on the 3rd day 3 tyres got damaged and though service was provided in that aspect again tyre got damaged after 10,000 kilometers. 2) there was no mileage as offered 3) gear system was never smooth 4) air conditioner was not working properly and for repairing the above said defects, the complainants had spent huge amount of money within 2 years from the date of purchase and because of the above defects, the vehicle became off road and was forced to keep it in shed. The complainant alleged that all those defects arised because of manufacturing defect. So she wants to replace the car with a new one
For proving the pleadings and allegations, the complainant was examined as PW1 and her husband Mr.Kasim was examined as PW2 and marked 10 documents as Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A2 is reply notice of 2nd OP, Ext.A3 is reply notice of Tata motors, Ext.A4 series are the bills issued by 2nd OP. Ext.A5 is the power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of the husband . Ext.A6 series are the taxi invoices receipts issued by 2nd OP. Ext.A7 is the complaint notice Ext,A8 is brochure of the car Ext.A9 is the tax invoice of 2nd OP and Ext.A10 is the quotation issued by 2nd OP. Both witness (PWs1 &2) were cross examined by the counsels of opposite parties..
The 2nd Op in their version denied all the allegations raised by the complainant including manufacturing defect.
The 1st and 3rd opposite parties jointly given version having main contentions that the warranty offered on every vehicle is subject to the terms and conditions of the warranty as contained in the operators service book and further the vehicle purchased by the complainant is of the highest quality and she had taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with its condition and performance. These opposite parties strongly opposed t he allegation of manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In their version, they stated that it has to be proved by the complainant through an expert opinion. They have further contended that they or their representatives never given any assurance to the complainant as alleged by her. According to them the vehicle have no major complaint and the complainant never complained major defect. They denied unfair trade practice and also contended that since the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect , the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sort for. The opposite parties did not examine their own witness except cross examined PWs 1&2.
After the evidence, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd OP. Other counsels were absent.
Here the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to substantiate her allegations. The main allegation of the complainant is that from the 3rd day of the purchase, the vehicle showed recurrent problems in the gear system, air conditioner etc and the 3 tyres got damaged. On analysing those allegations it can be seen that the vehicle purchased on 9/6/2010. The bills such as Ext.A4 series and Ext.A6 series are the available documents brought before us. On those documents we cannot find out a single piece of evidence to substantiate those allegations. Without producing any material evidence mere depositions given by the complainant and her husband would not prove allegations about the mechanical defects of the vehicle. The invoices produced before us shows that the complainant had obtained periodical services from 2nd OP. In those documents also there was no major defects were being reported. On perusal of Ext.A8 brochure of the vehicle it is evidenced that “Fiat New Linea -Diesel” have fuel economy is 20.4km/lr. Here the complainant admitted that she filed this complaint after completing the warranty period. According to the complainant due to the recurrent problems, the vehicle was kept ideal in the shed. But the tax invoices show that the vehicle plyed kilometres to kilometres .
The next allegation is that all those recurrent problems in the vehicle are due to manufacturing defect. Even in the version, opposite parties categorically contended about proving that point by expert opinion , the complainant did not take any steps before the commission to appoint an expert. It is settled position that the manufacturing defect should be proved with material evidence. Here for proving that point the complainant failed totally. Thus the complainant totally failed to prove her allegations. Hence without substantiating the allegations, we cannot come to a conclusion that there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Even if any damage happened to the vehicle after the warranty period, and without proving the manufacturing defect, there is no provision to give direction to the manufacture to replace the vehicle with a new one in free of cost. Here the complainant miserably failed to prove her case. Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The 1st point found accordingly.
In the result the complaint fails and hence dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1-copy of lawyer notice
A2-11/4/13-reply of Ext.A1
A3-19/4/13—do-
A4-tax invoice- 6 in Nos.
A5-24/6/15-Power of attorney
A6 - Tax invoice series 21 Nos.
A7-lawyer notice to OP
A8-Brochure relating to mileage
A9-6/10/15 tax invoice
A10- 23/5/15- tax invoice
PW1- Sakkeena Kasim- complainant
PW2- Kasim Haji- Husband of PW1
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
