Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/123/2018

Allaudin S/o. Ilmu Khan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Prem Prakash

17 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 123/2018

 

Allaudeen s/o Ilmu Khan r/o House No. 5, Shairani Aabad, Tehsil Didwala Distt. Nagaur.

Vs.

Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street, Mumbai & ors.

 

Date of Order 17.10.2019

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. P.P.Bunkar counsel for the complainant

Mr.A.R.Tantia counsel for the non-applicant no.1

Mr.Naimuddin Akil counsel for non-applicant no. 2 & 5

Mr.Rakesh Kaushik counsel for non-applicant no.6

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This complaint has been filed on 6.8.2018 with the contention that complainant purchased a vehicle on 28.4.2016 from non-applicant no.2. Non-applicant no.1 is the manufacturer of the same. After 15 days of the purchase on 13.5.2016 the tyres were wear off and he get 15 tyres changed between 13.5.2016 to 25.10.2016 and paid an amount of Rs. 2,63,762/-. Apart from it the vehicle suffers from technical difficulties and he has to paid the amount for repairs between 20.5.2016 to 4.3.2017. As the vehicle was not servicable he could not pay the loan amount and finance company is pressing hard to pay the installments. A defective vehicle has been handed over to him. Hence, vehicle be replaced or the sale price of the vehicle should be re-paid alongwith service charges which were taken by non-applicant no. 2 & 5.

 

The contention of the non-applicant no.1 is that vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect hence, he is not liable.

 

Non-applicant no. 2 & 5 has stated that vehicle is not suffering from any defect. The complainant do not want to pay the loan amount hence, false complaint has been filed.

 

3

 

The contention of the bank is that loan amount has not been re-paid hence, vehicle has been re-possessed and sold as per the agreement entered between the parties.

 

All the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Non-applicant no.6 has submitted written arguments also.

 

It is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased on 28.4.2016. The contention of the complainant is that on 13.5.2016 tyres were wear out and he has to replace 15 tyres between 13.5.2016 to 25.10.2016 and to support this contention VAT Invoice of tyres Ex. 4, 5 and 6 were submitted but in none of the VAT Invoice vehicle number has been mentioned and apart from it no evidence has been submitted which could show that tyres were ever put in the impugned vehicle. In total invoice of 14 tyres have been submitted whereas the contention of the complainant was that 15 tyres were replaced. Contrary to it in legal notice Ex. 19 it has been stated that 19 tyres were replaced. Estimate of service centre were also submitted but the estimates do not contain the replacement of tyres. Hence, the nature of the bills reveals that

4

 

false bills are submitted and tyres were never get replaced. Further more the complainant has not submitted any iota of evidence to show that he lodged any complaint to the non-applicant no. 1,2 or 5. Even the vehicle has not been taken to service centre to show the defects in the tyre. No job sheet to this defect has been placed on record which proves the falsity of the claim.

 

The other contention of the complainant is that vehicle was having other technical defects. In pleadings no specific technical defect is pointed out. Hence, the contention is vague one. The estimate of the job were submitted as Ex, 7 & 8 but in these estimates no defect has been pointed out and job sheets have not been submitted. Most of the estimates are for oil filter or fuel or turbo oil etc. and these documents has even no whisper about any manufacturing defect or technical defect which also shows the falsity of the contentions. Hence, the complainant could not show any deficiency on the part of non-applicant no. 1 to 5.

 

As regard to non-applicant no.6 it has been pleaded that finance company is pressing hard to pay the amount. This

5

 

contention cannot be termed as deficiency and non-applicant no.6 has rightly pointed out that when installments were not paid vehicle was re-possessed through Anx. R 6/5 and after due procedure it was sold vide Anx. 6/9 and money was adjusted towards the impugned account and statement of account Anx. R 6/11 is also submitted. Hence, when complainant himself was defaulter in paying the loan amount, the non-applicant no.6 was justified in re-possessing the vehicle and for further action as per the law. In view of the above the complainant could not show any deficiency on the part of non-applicants per contra the record of the case goes to show that to escape the liability of the finance this false complaint has been filed without any plausible reason.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed with Rs. 10,000/- cost which should be paid to the Consumer Welfare Fund within one month otherwise it will carry 9% interest from the date of the order.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

nm