State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Sh. Laxman Singh Gabrial on 10 December, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 / 2008
Tata Motors Ltd.
4th Floor, Saran Chambers
5, Park Road, Hazratganj
Lucknow
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Sh. Laxman Singh Gabrial S/o Sh. J.S. Gabrial
R/o Village Ghatdhar, Dharchula
District Pitthoragarh
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. M/s Mega Motors
Tikonia, Nainital Road
District Nainital
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Arun Uniyal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. V.K. Srivastava, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 10/12/2010
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.03.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 104 of 2005 and directing the opposite party No. 2 to replace the complainant's vehicle's engine with a new engine within 45 days from the date of the order. The opposite party No. 2 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that in case, the opposite party No. 2 fails to replace the engine of the vehicle, the opposite 2 party No. 2 shall pay the cost of the engine together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle from M/s Mega Motors, Haldwani - opposite party No. 1, an authorised dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. against invoice dated 29.09.2004 for sum of Rs. 4,74,402/-. The description of the vehicle is as under:
"Chassis No. 446152HVZ929753 Engine No. 483DL51HVZ717182".
3. After plying the vehicle for sometime, the complainant observed that the vehicle's carrying power has been reduced and vehicle's engine started getting stopped frequently. The complainant got the vehicle checked in the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 from 17.10.2004 to 20.12.2004. Ultimately, the vehicle lost its total carrying power on 03.03.2005. The complainant complained to the opposite party No. 1 regarding this problem. The opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to bring the vehicle to the service centre so that the engine could be replaced with a new one. On 06.04.2005, the complainant took back his vehicle with the belief that the engine was changed, but he found that the problem still persisted. The complainant again brought the vehicle on 05.05.2005 to the opposite party No. 1's service centre. The vehicle remained there upto 27.05.2005. This time, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the engine can not be replaced as the warranty period of the vehicle had expired. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital, which was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 04.03.2008 in the above terms.
3Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has failed in appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective and, thus, the finding recorded by the District Forum is very vague. The District Forum has failed to consider the fact that the complainant has alleged in his consumer complaint that the opposite party No. 1, respondent No. 2 before us did not change the engine of the vehicle. If the said engine was to be replaced, then the opposite party No. 1 should have contacted the appellant for the supply of a new engine, which the opposite party No. 1 never did. As such, it was most unjust on the part of the District Forum to hold the appellant guilty for not replacing the engine. The learned counsel also pleaded that no expert evidence has been submitted in respect of the performance of the said engine. Further, the relationship between the appellant and respondent No. 2 in on principal to principal basis and, therefore, for any alleged deficiency in service made by the respondent No. 2, the appellant can not be held liable. Besides these arguments, the appellant has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is illegal because it has been passed by the Members of the District Forum.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the arguments submitted on their behalf before the District Forum.
7. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. An important issue to be decided in this case is as to whether the appellant can be held liable to replace the engine or it would not be its liability because the warranty period has expired due 4 to the negligence of the selling dealer - respondent No. 2. Our answer to this question is in favour of the appellant. Firstly, because the warranty period has expired and secondly because the facts of the case lead us to believe that the original engine of the subject vehicle appears to have never been repaired / reconditioned by the dealer. Our reasons for this inference are the documents (Paper Nos. 49 to 51, 53, 54 and 68). Paper No. 49 is the invoice dated 29.09.2004 for the sale of Tata Sumo Victa LX. In this invoice, engine number has been mentioned as 483DL51HVZ717182. Paper No. 50 is the job card for the period from 01.04.2004 to 28.06.2005. In this card, the engine number has been mentioned as 4564567HVZZ45435, which is totally different from the one mentioned in the invoice dated 29.09.2004. Paper No. 51 is again a job card for the period from 01.04.2003 to 28.06.2005. In this card, a hand written note "U/wty - Recondition engine change" is significant and what we could infer from these words is that under the warranty period, the engine is to be changed after reconditioning. However, the periods "01.04.2004 to 28.06.2005" and "01.04.2003 to 28.06.2005" as mentioned in the said job cards, are not consistent with the date of invoice. In Paper No. 51 also, the engine number has been mentioned as 4564567HVZZ45435. Paper No. 53 is an invoice dated 06.04.2005 issued by M/s Mega Motors - respondent No. 2. The invoice is in respect of the repair of the said vehicle, but engine number has not been mentioned. Paper No. 54 is the Repair Order Form dated 05.05.2005. In this form, the engine number has been mentioned as 456456HVZZ45435. Thus, the engine which was under repair / reconditioning, is different from the one which was fitted in the said vehicle by the appellant. The selling dealer - respondent No. 2 has submitted these documents to mislead the Consumer Fora. The evidence in respect of the reconditioning of the engine, is also misleading. According to the respondent No. 2, the engine was sent for reconditioning to M/s Rachna Motors (Recon) 5 Pvt. Ltd., the approved reconditioning centre of the appellant. The "TARC PRODUCT COMPLAINT REPORT" of M/s Rachna Motors (Recon) Pvt. Ltd. (Paper No. 68) indicates that the engine sent for reconditioning by the respondent No. 2 was the engine bearing engine No. 4564567HVZ45435. Further, neither the respondent No. 2, nor M/s Rachna Motors (Recon) Pvt. Ltd. has intimated the appellant with regard to the fact that the engine was being reconditioned under the warranty period. To clarify these discrepancies in the said documents in respect of the engine number, we asked by orders dated 27.09.2010 and 20.10.2010 the respondent No. 2 to produce its record in original, so that it could be verified that the complainant's vehicle's engine was actually sent for reconditioning and the appellant had its consent for the same. But the respondent No. 2 failed to produce the record. Thus, we have reason to believe that the engine of the complainant's vehicle was never reconditioned by the respondent No. 2. The documents submitted as evidence appear to have been either fabricated in collusion with M/s Rachna Motors (Recon) Pvt. Ltd. or these relate to a different engine. Our belief is further confirmed by the inspection report of the Foreman, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (Paper Nos. 37 and 38). The engine number, as mentioned in the Foreman's Report, appears to be the same as mentioned in the Invoice, except some error of transcription. The report also says that the said vehicle had lost its pulling power in ascent. This confirms that the engine was not repaired / reconditioned by the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the decision of the District Forum, holding appellant liable to replace the engine and to pay compensation to the complainant, is not just. In our opinion, it is the respondent No. 2, who is solely responsible to get the engine reconditioned at its own cost. Otherwise also, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from respondent No. 2 and the relationship between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 is on principal to 6 principal basis.
8. Having considered these facts, we are of the opinion that the appellant should be absolved of the liability to replace / recondition the said engine and instead the respondent No. 2 should be held liable for the same. Thus, to this extent, the impugned order needs modification. Further, we feel that the compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- is on a very high side and the District Forum has not give any justification for the same. Keeping in view the fact that the said vehicle was kept by the respondent No. 2 for a long period for the so-called repair / reconditioning, a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- would be just and sufficient.
9. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is absolved of the liability to replace / recondition the engine of the vehicle in question and to pay the compensation as directed by the District Forum. Further, the order impugned dated 04.03.2008 of the District Forum is modified and the respondent No. 2 - M/s Mega Motors is directed to get the said engine reconditioned at its own cost and to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, as awarded by the District Forum, within a month from the date of this order, failing which the respondent No. 2 shall also be liable to pay interest @7% p.a. on sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the date of this order till the date of actual payment. Costs of the appeal made easy.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K