State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Limited vs Mr. Ramesh Anand on 13 September, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 13-09-2006 Appeal No.FA-766/2006 (Arising from the order dated 15-07-2006 District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan Institutional Area, Behind Qutub Hotel, New Delhi In Complaint Case No.2414/2001) 1. TATA MOTORS LIMITED, Appellant Through General Manager Through Flat No. 1121-26, 7th Floor, Mr. Tarun Bajaj, E-Block, International Trade Towers, Advocate. Nehru Place, New Delhi. 2. Chairman/Managing director, Tata Motors Limited., 26th Floor, Wordl Trade Centre, 1, Coffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005. 3. Registered Office, 24, Homi Modi Stree, Fort Mumbai. Versus 1. Mr. Ramesh Anand, Respondent No.1 15/12, Pant Nagar, New Delhi. 2. M/s Concorde Motors Ltd., Respondent No.2 2-A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) There is no need to issue notice to the respondent as the matter can be decided in right and just perspective on the basis of proceedings of the parties and rival contentions of the parties made before the District Forum as well as the material on record and settled positions of law and that too without reversing the impugned order or substantially varying or modifying the impugned order.
2. On Account of having sold a defective vehicle of the brand Indica Diesel Car of DLX model manufactured by the appellant the District Forum, has vide impugned order dated 15-07-2006 directed it to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- including the cost of litigation.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. The counsel for the appellant has at the very outset contended that the impugned order has been passed after the complaint of the respondent was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that there was no manufacturing defect but in appeal the matter was remanded to the District Forum for deciding it afresh in view of the view taken by this Commission in such like matters that it is not only the manufacturing defect that entitles the consumer to compensation but also that consumer is entitled for compensation as to the mental agony and harassment suffered by him for having been sold defective vehicle.
5. Merely because the District Forum has earlier dismissed the complaint and there was no other fresh material before it, does not mean that it was debarred from passing fresh order. Impugned order was passed on the directions of this Commission by way of remanding the matter and in view of the difference between the concept of manufacturing defect and defects as defined by section 2(1)(g).
6. In the instant case the car in question was taken to the workshop of the appellant 33 times during the period of about 24 months from 26-06-1999 to 01-08-2001 whereas the vehicle was purchased on 03-06-1999. The tyres of the car had to be replaced on 14-05-2000 and again on 13-07-2001 because of suspension problem. On 18-08-2001 the engine mounting broke and half engine block was replaced at the cost of Rs. 37,247/-. It was contended by the appellant that the vehicle was brought to their workshop for minor repairs and adjustment and therefore the vehicle cannot be held to be defective vehicle or suffering from defects.
7. Let us assume for the sake of arguments that the vehicle did not have any manufacturing defect but it does not mean that the vehicle was free from defects.
The circumstance of the vehicle having been taken to the workshop of the appellant 33 times within a short period of 24 months during which period suspension problem arose, tyres were replaced, engine mounting broke and half engine block was replaced shows that the vehicle was defective as defined by section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act where the defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
8. We have taken a view that whenever a consumer purchases a new vehicle he purchases it for his convenience and with the hope that it will not give him trouble as a second hand vehicle may give. If the new vehicle also starts giving trouble in such manner the consumer has to visit time and again the workshop for removal of minor defects and in this process suffers mental agony in terms of money and time and in modern day busy life any such kind of harassment is not tolerable by the consumer.
9. Wherever there is manufacturing defect in vehicle or such like goods, Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act empowers the District Forum to direct the manufacturer of the good to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect or return the complainant the price paid by the complainant. Otherwise the consumer is entitled for an amount as compensation for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. The District Forum can also order the manufacturer to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question or remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in question.
10. It appears that the appellant is labouring under a misconception that merely because the defects pointed out by the respondent were removed from time to time and therefore it was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent consumer. The appellant forgot that the respondent has to incur lot of expenses in taking the vehicle to the garage and also spent lot of time at the expenses of the busy schedule of life by visiting the garage as many as 33 times.
11. The objective of prescribing high standard of quality, purity and potency of the goods and also service with a view to inculcate sense and discipline among the manufacturers, traders and the service providers that they should not take the hardship of the consumers arising out of the sale of defective goods or deficiency in service like this lightly. It was with a view to protect the interest of the consumers at large that it was prescribed by the law that any goods manufactured or sold should be from any kind of imperfection, shortcoming in the quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
12. It is common knowledge that the manufacturers of passenger or other kinds of vehicles always make tall claims as to the quality, potency and standard of their goods in order to allure the customers and if customer after purchasing such goods is left at their mercy to go to them for removing one or other defect during short duration of its purchase, such a manufacturer cannot escape from the liability of compensating the consumer reasonably.
13. However, in the instant case the defects were removed from time to time and the complaints of the respondent were attended to and therefore considering it as a mitigating circumstance amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is a little on the higher side. We reduce it to Rs. 40,000/- which besides Rs. 2,500/- towards the cost of litigation as there is no such documentary material on the record to substantiate the claim of Rs. 50,000/-. In this case there is no liability of the dealer i.e. respondent No.2 as it had attended to the complaints of the respondent No.1 and even otherwise he was only receiving commission and was not manufacturer of the vehicle.
14. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
17. Announced on 13th September, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj