State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
J.V.Krishna Reddy S/O J.Lakshmi Reddy vs 1. M/S Tata Motors Ltd., And Another on 22 January, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.121 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.45 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM ANANTAPUR Between: J.V.Krishna Reddy S/o J.Lakshmi Reddy aged 35 years, Business, R/o Narasimhapalli Village Mallapalli Post, Gorantla Mandal Anantapur District Appellant/complainant A N D 1. M/s TATA Motors Ltd., (Manufacture) rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Law) KD 03 Carplant, Sector 15 VISA PENTDA CHILHALI, Pune-501 2. M/s Prani Auto Plaza (authorised selling agent) rep. by its Managing Partner Tor Towers, Obulreddy Nagar NH-7 By-pass Road, Anantapur Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant M/s N.C.Sampath Kumar Counsel for the Respondent M/s VVSN Raju QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER TUESDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint stating that he purchased Indigo XL Grand Dcor III from the second respondent and the car was manufactured by the first respondent. The complainant complained of shortcomings in the vehicle from 22.11.2007 such as pick up, improper synchronisation with transmission system and engine getting stopped, cold starting etc. The vehicle was kept in the garage of second respondent for about 350 days and the problem could not be identified. The complainant has claimed for replacement of vehicle with a new vehicle.
2. The first respondent resisted the claim on the premise that the car was used for commercial activities and it has covered 58,747 kms from the date of its purchase. It is contended that the appellant is not the consumer and he purchased the vehicle on finance from Mahendra and Mahendra Finance and as such the appellant has no locus standi to file the complaint. During the second service, the appellant complained for improper headlight focus which was addressed satisfactorily and no improper focus of the head lights was observed. During the third service on 7.1.2008, the respondent attended the engine oil leakage which was resolved and the vehicle was delivered to the appellant. The appellant had taken the car for schedule service to Bangalore and it was repaired satisfactorily. The appellant refused to take delivery of the car.
The appellant has not made any specific defect in the car and examined no expert.
3. The second respondent resisted the claim contending that on 22.11.2007 the headlights of the car went off and on 24.12.2007 bubbles developed on the tyres which are not manufacturing defects and arose out of driving and maintenance of the vehicle. The vehicle was repaired and handed over to the appellant on 11.3.2008 and 26.6.2008. The respondent no.2 had given reply on 27.2.2009 to the notice dated 17.3.2009 of the appellant. The complaint is filed beyond the period warranty. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any other defects in it.
4. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A24. On behalf of the respondents, the Assistant General Manager (Law) of first respondent company and Service Manager of the second respondent company filed their affidavits. The respondents had not chosen to file any document.
5. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to prove any defect much less the manufacturing defect in the car purchased by him as also that the appellant is not consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the vehicle developed problem during the warranty period and it suffered defect and the respondents retained it for a period of 370 days by not attending to the problems. It is contended that the District Forum has not considered the evidence and the argument of the appellant and that the defects in engine and the transmission were not attended to by the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has filed written arguments.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?
9. The facts not in dispute are that the car Indigo manufactured by the first respondent and sold by the second respondent to the appellant was offered warranty subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in manual and service book. The appellant claimed that the respondent sold him a defective car whereas the respondents contended that the appellant suppressed material facts that the vehicle met with an accident and the terms and conditions of warranty do not cover in case the vehicle met with an accident. Further, it is the contention of the respondents that there was no any defect in the vehicle sold to the appellant.
10. The learned counsel for the first opposite party has contended that the car sold to the appellant is of high quality and the appellant having satisfied himself with the condition of the car and its performance and the car was delivered to the appellant after carrying out pre-delivery inspection by the second respondent. He has contended that the cars would be delivered to the dealers after approval of the Automotive Research Association of India and every car would undergo at the plant of the first respondent-company various quality control tests and the first respondent company is awarded ISO TS/16949. It is contended that time the car is reported for schedule service or for any repairs, the grievances of the customers would be recorded in the job card and the service advisor after conducting standard tests would record his observation in the job card.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the car developed numerous problems on innumerable occasions and the respondents keeping the car with them for a period of 350 days would throw much light on the fact that the car suffered manufacturing defect and the respondents had failed to identify the exact problem as also they failed to repair the car and that the inherent defect in the engine of the vehicle detected during the warranty period would extend the warrant period. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the respondents have to repair the vehicle free of cost treating the problem as inherent defect of the vehicle by extending the period of warranty on the vehicle.
12. There cannot be any dispute with the certification of ISO TS/16949 conferred on the first respondent-company. The award of certificate would not be a ready-made inference for the cars each time manufactured are defect free. As a mark of caution the counsel for the first respondent would contend that besides the ISO certification, the cars manufactured by the respondent no.1 would undergo various quality control tests at the plant of the first respondent company and before being delivered to their customers, the dealers would conduct pre-inspection test.
13. The appellant purchased the vehicle on 7.09.2007. The vehicle was purchased by the appellant having agreed to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned in Owners Manual and Service Book which are also binding on the respondents. Clause 1 of the terms of warranty provides for entitlement to the appellant free service and replacement of spare parts and also for replacement of the vehicle in case the vehicle is held irreparable on account of manufacturing defects.
14. The vehicle was taken for service for 12 times from the time of its purchase. The service rendered by repairing or repairing the relevant parts of the engine and other parts of the vehicle and the date on which the vehicle was delivered to the appellant by the second respondent to the appellant after effecting service to it are mentioned in the job cards have been stated herein below:
Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.0.00 Rs.0.00 Date & Time 07-01-2008 06:14 PM 07-01-2008 06:17 PM Customer Requests Repair Advice by Service Advisor: Mr/Ms P RAJESH Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate A6 SCREENING NOISE N Y 152040 ALTERNATOR BELT RENEW . 3 0 FROM ENGINE-
D5 VEHICLE VIBRATIONS N 401020 BALANCE WHEEL(WHEEL . 4 0 TOO HIGH REMOVED)EACH D5 VEHICLE VIBRATIONS N 401040 FRONT WHEEL ALIGNMENT, . 4 0 TOO HIGH CHECK AND ADJUST A24 CHECK ENGINE N N 548050 R/R CABLE HARNESS FRONT . 6 0 (ENGINE COMPARTMENT) D13 EXCESSIVE TYRE N 980019 HANDLING CHARGES FOR 0 0 ROAD NOISE SUPPLIER PARTS + NEW TYRES PURCHASED SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N FREE3 THIRD FREE SERVICE + 5 2. 5 0 TYRE AIR COMPLA, H.LIGHT WIRING DHEET, DVD N/W SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N STDCHK STANDARD CHECKS+RR . 5 0 TAIL LAMP R/P LCD MONITOR N/W Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 24-12-2007 06:10 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs. 0.00 Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.512.29 Rs.112.29 Date & Time 09-02-2008 06:12 PM 09-02-2008 06:17 PM Customer Requests Repair Advice by Service Advisor : Mr/Ms RAGHU D Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate A2 ENGINE OIL- N Y 181010 EXTERNAL OIL LOSS-CHECK .4 0 100 LEAKAGE +DOOR BEEDINGS,ALL DOR SET, CLUSTER BULB N/W Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 09-02-2008 06:00 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs.512.29 Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.3,000.00 Rs.0.00 Date & Time 12-04-2008 02:37 PM 12-04-2008 02:39 PM Customer Requests Repair Advice by Service Advisor : Mr/Ms P RAJESH Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N BW WASHING & VACUUMING+ . 5 0 CENTER LOCK N/W, H.LIGHT FOCUS AD SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N FREE 4 FOURTH FREE SERVICE+ 6.5 3000 0 COOLANT LEAK, FR & RR SUS C/UP, FR RH WHEEL CUTTING SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N OC ENGINE OIL & FILTER . 5 0 CHARGE+GEAR OIL R/P, E . OIL LEAK, A/C BAD SMELL C/UP Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 11-03-2008 06:00 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs. 3,000.00 Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.1,649.15 Rs.1,890.05 Date & Time 07-10-2008 12:48 PM 07-10-2008 12:52 PM Customer Requests Repair Advice by Service Advisor : Mr/Ms P RAJESH Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N BW WASHING & VACUUMING+ . 5 200 GENERAL C/UP, LOWER BODY SOUND, POOR P/UP SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N OC ENGINE OIL & FILTER . 5 1200 200 CHARGE+ENG HOSE CLIPS TIGHT, WIPER N/W, DRIVER SEAT COVER A Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 08-08-2008 05:00 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs. 1,649.15 Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.561.44 Rs.561.44 Date & Time 07-10-2008 12:47 PM 07-10-2008 12:51 PM Customer Requests Repair Advice by Service Advisor: Mr/Ms P RAJESH Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate A2 ENGINE OIL LEAKAGE- N Y 181010 EXTERNAL OIL LOSS-CHECK . 4 200 + RH SIDE MIRROR ASSY NEW, ENG OIL LEAK C/UP(GAS KIT SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N 401020 BALANCE WHEEL(WHEEL . 4 100 REMOVED)EACH + ANTENA FIX, TOTAL BODY SOUND ENG SOUND TURBO HOSES SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N 401040 FRONT WHEEL ALIGNMENTS. 4 0 200 CHECK AND ADJUST + RH SEAT COVER NEW(PASTIC), ALL DOR AD, WATER LEAKAGE Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 17-09-2008 06:00 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs. 2,361.44 Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.0.00 Date & Time Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate No. Part No. Particulars Type UoM Qty Rate MRP Dis/Item Dis. Tax Tax(Rs) Amount % % (Rs) Payment Method : Cash 1 279723126309 POLY VEE BELT(5PK- Paid Each 1 268.44 302.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 33.56 268.44
950)HPHW(GATES) Sub Total : 268.44 Name Tax Rate Tax Amount VAT 12.50 33.56
---------------------------------
Gross total : 302.00 Adjustments : 0.00 Rupee Three Hundred Two Only. Grand Total : 302.00 ______________________________________________________________________________ Final Estimation Actual Charges(Labour+Parts):
Rs.0.00 Date & Time 15-05-2009 05:45 PM Customer Requests epair Advice by Service Advisor : Mr/Ms P RAJESH Labour rate per hour Customer Complainant details Repeat Top Job Code Repair Details Std hrs Parts Labour CmplCode Y/N RC (Instructions to Workshop) Estimate Estimate A1 ENGINE N Y 075000 CHECK AND ADJUST FUEL . 5 50 OVERHEATING- INJECTION PUMP TIMING+ ENG OVER HEAT C/UP RADIATOR FAN, CLUTCH C/UP ENG RA D9 TYRE WEAR HIGH- N Y 401040 FRONT WHEEL ALLIGNMENT, . 4 225.2 CHECK AND ADJUST B1 BRAKE N 421000 BRAKE SYSTEM, CHECK AND 1 . 3 130 GRABBING/JAM DETERMINE CONDITION (PAID)+BRAKE HARD C/UP BOOSTER, A21 COLD STARTINGN Y 542000 BATTERY.CHECK OUTPUT . 2 20 PROBLEM AND CONDITION + 90 KM ABOVE CHECK ENG LIGHT GLOW , C/UP BATTERY DISCH E4 INACCURATE N 545020 REPLACE SPEEDOMETER+ . 6 60 ODOMETER/TRIPMETE RPM METER N/W, CLUTCH C/UP ENG RAISING, K1 A/C COOLING N Y 833030 CHECK A/C SYSTEM AND . 5 50 INSUFFICIENT- DETERMINE FAULT+A/C N/W, FOG LAMPS BULBD R/P, FOOT MATS R/P SSC SCHEDULED SERVICE N STDCHK STANDARD CHECKS . 5 50 Estimate Delivery Date & Time: 15-05-2009 05:45 PM Estimate Delivery Bill: Rs. 0.00 Job Card Date : 24-08-2009 Service Request Type : Running Repairs Sr. Part No/Job Code Particulars Type UoM QTY Rate(Rs) Dis.(Rs)/ Dis.% VAT% Vat(Rs) Ant(Rs) No. Item 1 62123055093 FUSE 20A SEDGE TYPE Paid Each 2 13.33 0.00 12.50 3.33 26.67 YELLOW 2 FSTNT08 NUT 8 MM Paid Each 2 3.25 0.00 12.50 0.81 6.51 3 BULB1141 BULB 1141 Paid Each 1 22.22 0.00 12.50 2.78 22.22 4 ADHGLUE01 SUPER GLUE Paid GM 2 8.00 0.00 12.50 2.00 16.00 5 FSTSCR01 SCREW Paid Each 3 3.00 0.00 12.50 1.13 9.01 6 FST002 WASHER Paid Each 3 1.50 0.00 12.50 0.56 4.51 7 284254509915 DOOR SWITCH(REAR)-2 Paid Each 1 64.00 0.00 12.50 8.00 64.00 TER-M/S MINDARIKA 8 9999-5 OTHER ITEM 5 Paid Each 1 222.00 0.00 12.50 27.78 222.22 9 543080 ECU REMOVE/REFIT Paid 1,500.00 (CHEC K REMOVT) 10 990000 MISCELLANEOUS(F PREESERVI RH SID E DOOR WHJATER CE ENTRE) 11 980005 VEHICLE OFF ROAD HELP 500.00 LINE CHARGES _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ @12.50% VAT on Parts : 46.39 @10% Service Tax: 200.00 @3% Education Cess: 6.00 Final Parts Invoice Amount:
417.53 Final Labour Invoice Amount: 2,206.00 __________________________________________ Parts Net Taxable Amount:371.14 Gross Amount : 2,623.53 Adjustments : 0.47 Rupees Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four Only: Grand Total : 2,624.00 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Sr Part No/Job Code Particulars Type UoM Qty Rate(Rs) Dis.(Rs) Dis.% VAT% Vat(Rs) Amounts(Rs) No. /Item 1 OILCASGTXD DIESEL ENGINE OIL CH4 Paid Ltr 5.5 231.11 0.00 0.00 12.50 158.50 1,271.11 15W40 CASTROL GTX DIESEL 2 9999-2 OTHER ITEM-2 Paid Each 1 88.89 0.00 0.00 12.50 11.11 88.89 3 GREASEAPCAST GREASE BALL BEARING Paid Kgs 0.05 168.89 0.00 0.00 12.50 1.06 8.44 R AP )CASTROL) 4 279018130106 ASSY.OIL FILTER TC Paid Each 1 141.33 0.00 0.00 12.50 17.67 141.33 (ELOFIC) 5 BULB 1141 BULB 1141 Paid Each 1 22.22 0.00 0.00 12.50 2.78 22.22 6 COOLANTGOLDE COOLANT GOLDEN Paid Ltr 0.3 120.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 4.50 36.00 N CRUISER SUNSTAR 1400M 7 OILBRAKECAST BRAKE OIL UNIVERSAL Paid Ltr 0.05 284.44 0.00 0.00 12.50 1.78 14.22 R (CASTR) 8 G273135603102 ANG.CONTACT BRG(HUB Paid Each 1 1,053.33 0.00 0.00 12.50 131.67 1,053.33 END 9 G279024100165 Assy Engine Mount (C) Paid Each 1 470.22 0.00 0.00 12.50 58.78 470.22 10 279723126311 POLY VEE BELT(5PK-730) Paid Each 1 213.33 0.00 0.00 12.50 26.67 213.33 HPHW (GATES) 11 279101170110 ASSY.DIPSTICK Paid Each 1 41.78 0.00 0.00 12.50 5.22 41.78 12 FSTSCRO1 SCREW Paid Each 10 3.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 3.76 30.04 13 FST002 WASHER Paid Each 10 1.50 0.00 0.00 12.50 1.88 15.02 14 885582020004 CA WIPER BLADE KIT Paid Each 1 311.11 0.00 0.00 12.50 38.89 311.11 15 253409110117 ASSY. FUEL FILTER DELPHI Paid Each 1 2,163.56 0.00 0.00 12.50 270.44 2,163.56 16 62120601216 BULB P21 W 12V BA 15S E Paid Each 1 63.11 0.00 0.00 12.50 7.89 63.11 17 267888100105 A LINER FRT WHL HSG LH Paid Each 1 509.33 0.00 0.00 12.50 63.67 509.33 18 267888100106 A LINER FRT WHL HSG RH Paid Each 1 509.33 0.00 0.00 12.50 63.67 509.33 19 911090 REPLACE FRONT SEAT INCL PAID INING KNOB 20 PAIDMJ MAJOR SERVICE(EVERY 200 PAID 750.00 00 KMS) 21 152000 R/R ALTERNATOR ASSY PAID 22 721070 REPLACE DOOR WINDER(E PAID ACH) 23 421000 BRAKE SYSTEM,CHECK AN PAID D DETERMINE CONDITION (PAID) 24 990000 MISCELLANEOUS (GEAR LE PAID 125.00 VER LUBRECTION) 25 331070 R/R FRONT LOWER WISHBO 650.00 NE.(INCL.BUSH REPLCEMENT) PAID 26 990000 MISCELLANEOUS(MACHIN PAID 450.00 SHOP CHARGES) 27 221040 ENGINE SUPPORT-RENEW C PAID 200.00
-MOUNT(FOR CARS) 28 331010 R/R FRONT WHEEL-REPLACE 450.00 PARTS(EACH SIDE)(FR RH WHEEL BEARING REPLACED) PAID 29 152040 ALTERNATOR BELT RENEW PAID 200.00 ____________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ @ 12.5% Vat on Parts : 870.30 @ 10% Service Tax : 282.50 @ 3% Deducation Cess: 8.50 Final Parts Invoice Amount : 7,832.70 Final Labour Invoice Amount: 3,115.98 ____________________________________ Gross Amount: 10,948.68 Parts Net Taxable Amount : 6,962.39 Adjustments : 0.32 Rupees Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine Only Grand Total : 10,949.00
15. All the time , the vehicle was taken for service to the second respondent, the problems reported by the appellant are, a) improper functioning of head lights, engine getting switched off while the vehicle is in motion and c) formation of bubbles on the tyres.
16. The warranty period would expire on 6.03.2009 in terms of Clause 1 of the terms of Warranty which provides for warranty for a period of 18 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle or 50,000kms whichever occurs earlier. The warranty period would expire on 6.07.2009. The appellant complained of improper functioning of headlights of the vehicle, bubbles developing on the tyres and frequent break down of the vehicle. The respondents denied any such complaint not borne by the job cards.
17. In the job card dated 5.12.2008 it is mentioned that the vehicle was stopped on the road. The second respondent has described the imporper functioning of head lights and bubbles developing on the tyres as the problems arising out of improper driving and improper maintenance habits. Thus, though the problems cannot be termed as manufacturing defects, they were reported by the appellant to the second respondent.
18. During pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the Motor Vehicle was got inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who filed his report before the District Forum stating that during the time the vehicle was conducted road test, the engine stopped running for two times even when the clutch and brake of the vehicle were properly used. He has referred to the problems posed by the engine of the vehicle as under:
During the period of road test when there were humps or hurdles and irregularities i.e like speed breakers and irregular roads, when the vehicle slowed down the engine of the vehicle stopped two times during the road though the operation of clutch and brake were proper.
While taking the drive initially or moving the vehicle after passing a hump or hurdle even after gears shifting to lower gears engine pickup was noticed too low to move forward. It was understood that the vehicle was used to move uniformly only on continuous drive only.
19. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has pointed out the following reasons for the cause of the problems the engine of the vehicle
a) Poor calibration of the fuel injection pump or the unmatched one with respect to the unmatched elements
b) Poor phasing of the fuel injection pump or to say the unmatched pump with respect to the improper driven gear ratio or the unmatched cam operation.
c) Improper or poor combustion of fuel in the cylinder after compression stroke because of the above said two irregularities (a) (b)
d) With a deep concept it can be said the irregularities might be due to unmatched cylinder with respect to improper machining or finishing and improper cubic capacity due to which the energy delivered differs the engine operation and cause subsequently the disturbance in transmission of power.
e) Weak valves or unmatched with respect to the crank movement.
20. The Motor Vehicle Inspector has not expressed his opinion that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect. He has pointed out the remedy for rectifying the problems posed by the engine of the vehicle in the following terms.
1) Thorough checking of the fuel injection pump and replacement if necessary.
2) Thorough checking of the cylinders for compression ration and to replace the engine itself if necessary.
21. The definite conclusion as regards to the problems posed by the vehicle can be that the problems can be rectified by thorough checking of fuel injection and cylinders of the compressor. The distance ran by the vehicle is also a relevant factor to determine whether it suffered any manufacturing defect. The vehicle covered a distance of 58,747 kms since the date of its purchase. Thus, it can be held that the vehicle has not suffered any manufacturing defect.
22. The learned counsel for the first respondent has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 to contend that the appellant is bound by the terms of the Owners Manual that Clause 9 prohibited the appellant from repudiating the sale of the vehicle manufactured by the first respondent company. Clause 9 of the Owners Manual reads as under:
the buyer shall have no other rights except those set out above and have, in particular, no right to repudiate the sale, or any agreement or to claim any reduction in the purchase price of the car, or to demand any damages or compensation for losses, incidental or indirect, or inconvenience or consequential damages, loss of car, or loss of time, or otherwise, incurred or accrued.
23. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in CN Anantha Ram vs Fiat India Limited and others (2011)1 SCC 460. The purchaser of Fiat Siena weekerner diesel vehicle left the vehicle on the day of purchase on the premise that during short drive he had taken certain defects in the engine manifest themselves and thereafter on several occasions various parts of the engine were replaced. The Supreme Court held that the vehicle was used for covering short distance of 800 kms and approved the relief granted by the National Commission. The National Commission has granted the following reliefs:
1.
Removal of the defect if any, in the vehicle and make it roadworthy if necessary by reconditioning the vehicle
2. Delivery of the vehicle to the complainant in the presence of an independent technical expert
3. Certificate of expert that the vehicle is free from any defect
4. Providing of warranty for one year from the date of delivery of the vehicle.
24. Taking into consideration of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors report and the findings noted in the job cards, we are inclined to hold the appellant entitled to inspection of the vehicle by a technical expert and the respondents shall carry out the repairs pointed out by the expert.
25. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The respondents are directed to inspect the vehicle by a technical expert and carry out the repairs as pointed out by him. Costs through the proceedings quantified atRs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.22.01.2013 KMK*