BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Thursday, the 26th day of April 2018
First Appeal No.18 / 2016
G. Selvaraju, son of R. Gopalsamy,
No.31, 5th Cross Street, Kurinji Nagar Extention,
Lawspect, Puducherry – 605 008.
…. Appellant / Complainant
vs
1. The Authorised Signatory
"Manakular Motors" Preshitha Complex
Villianur Road, Reddiyarpalayam
Pondicherry – 605 010.
2. The Chief Executive,
TATA MOTORs, Marketing and Customer
Support Car business unit, One Forbes, 5th
Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 023.
…. Respondents / Opposite Parties
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in C.C. 39 / 2012 dated 13.07.2016)
In C.C. 39 / 2012
G. Selvaraju, son of R. Gopalsamy,
No.31, 5th Cross Street, Kurinji Nagar Extention,
Lawspect, Puducherry – 605 008.
…. Complainant
vs
1. The Authorised Signatory
"Manakular Motors" Preshitha Complex
Villianur Road, Reddiyarpalayam
Pondicherry – 605 010.
2. The Chief Executive,
TATA MOTORs, Marketing and Customer
Support Car business unit, One Forbes, 5th
Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 023.
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru N. Baptiste Augustin, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R1 – Ex parte
Thiru U. Mohan Ilayaraja, Advocate for R2
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 13.07.2016 made in
C.C. 39 / 2012.
2. The complainant thereon is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are the respondents.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
4. The gist of the complaint is set out hereunder:
The complainant purchased one Indica Vista Car on 29/07/2010 from the first opposite party manufactured by the second opposite party through hire purchase from Sundaram Finance as per Ex.C1 which is a photocopy of RC Book; Ex.C2 is the photocopy of Insurance Certificate; Ex.C3 is the Debit Note and Ex.C4 is the Tax Invoice.
5. It is alleged that the car started giving problem on 13.08.2010 itself. However, the first opposite party did not give any proper answer for such brake down though it has been rectified by it. When the complainant gave the vehicle on 01.09.2010 at 1093 kms. for regular service reporting Low Fuel Economy, High Noise from the engine, dark smoke from the silencer etc and also reported the previous brake down, the first opposite party did not attend the same and delivered the vehicle to the complainant. Again on 24.02.2011, 23.07.2011, 13.02.2012 and 23.04.2012 the car was entrusted with the first opposite party not only for service, but also for rectifying the defects thereon. Since the vehicle has not been properly serviced and was giving problem again and again, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 31.05.2012 under Ex.C14. Though it has been received by the opposite parties, the second opposite party alone under Ex.C17 dated 19.06.2012 issued a reply. Therefore, the complainant has approached the District Forum, claiming compensation.
6. The second opposite party filed reply version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. It is also stated that there is no manufacturing defects in the vehicle purchased by the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service. There was prompt and swift service to attend the alleged grievances reported by the complainant free of cost as well as on paid basis. Thus, the second opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The first opposite party remained ex parte.
8. On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as CW1 and documents filed on his behalf were marked as Exs.C1 to C17. On the side of the opposite parties, no witness was examined and no documents were filed.
9. The District Forum, after framing three points for determination, namely, 1) whether the Complainant is the consumer? 2) whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service? and 3) to what relief the complainant is entitled for? has held that the complainant is the Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protect Act and also held that there is deficiency in service and finally has directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost.
10. As stated already, challenging the said order contending that meager compensation has been given in the District Forum, the complainant has approached this State Commission. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the documents and heard the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the second opposite party.
11. The District Forum has rightly held that the complainant is the Consumer since he has purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party which was manufactured by the second opposite party through hire purchase from Sundaram Finance and that he has complained of several deficiencies against the opposite parties and filed the complaint. Therefore, in our considered view that the District Forum rightly held tha the complainant is the Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.
12. As regards the deficiency of service, it has to be seen that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party on 29.07.2010 and was using the car though, according to him, it had several inherent problems. Each and every time the complainant has entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for regular service. On 13.08.2010, 24.01.2011, 23.07.2011, 13.02.2012 and 23.04.2012 the complainant entrusted the vehicle to the first opposite party for service as well as making complaint of certain defects. Only on 31.5.2012, a notice has been caused to the opposite parties seeking compensation. Thus, the complainant was using the vehicle for nearly two years. Had the complainant returned the vehicle to the opposite parties pointing out the defects in the manufacturing, definitely, this Forum would have considered the several prayer sought for by the complainant. As stated already, the complainant was using the vehicle even though according to him, it had some problems for more than two years.
13. However, we have to see that the vehicle was entrusted to the first opposite party pointing out several defects within a few months of purchase of the vehicle. The vehicle had so many problems which were said to be attended by the first opposite party. The complainant was not able to point out any manufacturing defects in the vehicle. Undoubtedly, he has made it that the vehicle had some inherent problems which had to be rectified by the first opposite party. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The second opposite party is equally liable because the first opposite party being their agency and is liable for deficiency in service. Thus, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. While directing payment of a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service, the District Forum failed to note that there were several defects that had been pointed out by the complainant immediately after purchase of the vehicle and thereafter. Definitely, it would have caused mental agony to the complainant who bought the car with fond of purchasing new vehicle, by availing loan under hire purchase through Sundaram Finance. For the said purpose, a meager compensation of Rs.20,000/- will not be sufficient. Hence, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.40,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Thus, we are enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Forum to Rs.40,000/-. A sum of Rs.5000/- has been awarded as cost by the District Forum and we are not inclined to modify the same. We are of the view that it would be just and reasonable to grant a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost for defending the appeal and the said sum shall be payable by the opposite parties to the complainant. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part directing the opposite parties;
- To pay a sum of Rs.40000/- as compensation to the complainant
- To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost before the District Forum
- To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost before us.
15. Thus, the appeal is disposed of in the manner set out above.
Dated this the 26th day of April 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
