JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant, who is respondent No.1 in RP/175/2013 and appellant in FA/157/2013 and FA/158/2013 purchased a Tata Indigo Car from M/s Joshi Auto Zone an Authorised Dealer of the manufacturer – M/s Tata Motors Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.480573. The case of the complainant is that the car started giving trouble right from the time it was purchased and therefore, had to be taken to the workshop on a number of occasions. According to his Counsel, the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop as many as 24 times. The details of the repairs carried out in the workshop have been given in para 2 of the order of the State Commission dated 30.4.2012 which has been impugned in RP/175/2013 and need not be reproduced. The complainant, however, remained dissatisfied with the repair carried out in the workshop. He, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint,  seeking refund of the amount which he had paid for the car with compensation etc.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer as well as by the dealer who denied any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was interalia stated by them that as and when the vehicle was brought to the workshop, the repair was carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 17.1.2011 directed as under:-

“9.         Therefore, relying on the contents of the report as well as the submissions made by the complainant and the OPs, we are of the opinion that the OPs be directed to rectify all the defects present in the vehicle by repairing / replacing the parts as per the report of the Engineering College within one month of receipt of this order.  In case they are unable to rectify the defects as per the report, they may then refund the value of the vehicle paid by the complainant after deducting depreciation @ 10% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of this order.  The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy failing which they shall pay the awarded amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the payment is actually made to the complainant.”

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal culminating  in the State Commission passing the impugned order dated 30.4.2012. The order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint was not challenged either by the manufacturer or by the dealer by preferring an appeal before the concerned State Commission.

5.      FA/157/2013 and FA/158/2013 have arisen out of the execution proceedings, initiated by the complainant for  implementation of the order passed by the State Commission.

6.      The learned counsel for Tata Motors submits that his objection is limited to direction No.2 of the State Commission whereby they have been directed to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant and in case, they fail to satisfy the complainant, they are made liable to refund  the price of the vehicle to the complainant.

7.      It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was inspected by Mechanical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, pursuant to an order passed by the District Forum on 10.8.2010. On test drive of the vehicle, the expert noted as under:-

“1. The engine of the vehicle is not giving proper output during low gears.

2.   The clutch system was not working properly.  The clutch pedal was very hard and when the clutch pedal was released after putting the gear to move the vehicle, the engine stopped.

3.   The air conditioning system was working properly when the vehicle was running at higher gears i.e. at the speed of 45-65 Km/Hr. but engine has a problem of taking the load of Air conditioning system at lower gears.

4.   There was vibration in the vehicle between 2500-2800 RPM which is otherwise not desirable.

5.   There was a typical sound from the front left side of the vehicle / engine.

6.   There was a noise on the right side of the vehicle when driving through uneven road.  This may be due to faulty shock absorber or suspension system.

All the above observations may be attributed to the fact that the vehicle in question was not running smoothly during test drive.”

8.      In my opinion, it was for the expert and not for the complainant to decide whether the vehicle had been adequately repaired or not and whether it was in roadworthy condition or not. The possibility of the complainant never expressing satisfaction with the repairs, in order to claim refund of the price of the car, cannot be ruled out, if a  decision in this regard is left to him. The vehicle having been inspected by an expert and he having found several defects in the vehicle, it would be for him to verify whether all those defects stand removed or nor. This would be fair and reasonable not only to the complainant but also to the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

9.      The learned counsel for the Tata Motors submits that the vehicle was got duly repaired and they had also furnished an affidavit of the Service Engineer in this regard. However, that in my opinion, would not be adequate since the Service Engineer being an employee of the manufacturer / seller, the report given by him may not always be a fair and impartial report. This is more so in a case where the vehicle has already been inspected by an expert from a Government institution, whose fairness and impartiality cannot be disputed by any party.

10.    All the three matters, therefore, are disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

1. The complainant shall take the vehicle in question to the nearest authorised workshop of Tata Motors, address of which shall be communicated to him by the manufacturer within two weeks from today.

2. The vehicle once taken to the authorised workshop of Tata Motors shall be inspected by the expert who had earlier inspected the vehicle on 26.8.2010. If for some reason, the same expert is not available, the Director of Punjab Engineering College shall nominate some other expert to inspect the vehicle.

3. The vehicle shall be repaired by Tata Motors at its own cost to the complete satisfaction of the expert, who will ensure that all the defects found during inspection on 26.8.2010 stand removed. If any other defect is found in the vehicle, Tata Motors will not be required to remove such a defect, unless the complainant pay for it.

4. The cost of inspection by the expert and submission of a report by him to the concerned District Forum shall be borne by Tata Motors. It is recorded that the compensation awarded by the State Commission stands already paid to the complainant.

5. In case the vehicle is not repaired to the complete satisfaction of the expert in terms of this order, the complainant shall be entitled to refund of the entire amount which he paid for the vehicle, within three months from today. The said payment in that case shall be made by the manufacturer of the vehicle M/s Tata Motors.

6. There shall be no order as to cost.