National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Cj Darcl Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 2 July, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 725 OF 2021 (Against the Order dated 05/05/2021 in Complaint No. 584/2013 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. M/S. T&T MOTORS PVT. LTD. GA-2/B-1 EXTN.MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/S. CJ DARCL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. & 2 ORS. PLOT NO. 55P, SECTIR-44, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, GURUGRAM, HARYANA-122003 2. MR. VINEET AGGARWAL S/O SH.D.K.AGGARWAL, R/O B-374,LOK VIHAR, PTITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034 3. MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA 'P' LTD., E-3, MIDC, CHAKAN PHASE-III, CHAKAN INDUSTRIAL AREA, KURULI & NIGHOJE, TALUKA-KHED, PUNE-401501 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. CHANDAN MALIK, ADVOCATE
MR.RAKESH AHLAWAT, A.R. FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. MANU BERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2 MR. VISHAL BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-3
Dated : 02 July 2024 ORDER
1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondents as detailed above, under section 51 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 05.05.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 548 of 2013 inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 05.05.2021 of the State Commission.
2. The Appellant T.T. Motors was OP No.2 ( as per amended memo of parties filed by the Complainant, which was allowed by the State Commission) before the State Commission while Respondent No.1 was Complainant No.1, respondent no.2 was Complainant No.2 and Respondent No.3 was Opposite Party No.1 before the State Commission.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 11.11.2021. Appellant filed brief notes of arguments on 31.10.2023, Respondent No.1 and 2 filed brief notes of arguments on 26.10.2023 while Respondent No.3 while brief notes of arguments on 30.10.2023.
4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainants and as emerged from the FA, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that Complainant No.1 purchased a Mercedes Benz C 220 car from OP No.2 / Appellant herein ( T and T Motors ) in November 2012 for a total consideration of Rs.27,08,189/- for the personal use of Complainant no.2 ( Vineet Aggarwal), being Vice President of the Company. On 20.07.2013, the said vehicle broke down during rainfall in Delhi and was sent to T & T Motors for repair. However, till the filing of complaint before the State Commission, the complainants received more than five estimates for repair of the said car from the opposite parties, which in total amounted to more than the value of the car. Moreover, the said car was not delivered by the opposite parties even after the lapse of more than 3 months. The complainants raised the said grievance to the opposite parties through various emails but were of no avail. Being aggrieved of the manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, the Complainant filed CC before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 05.05.2021 directed T & T Motors Ltd. ( OP No.2 before the State Commission as per amended memo of parties ) to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment faced by the complainants and Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost. OP No.2 raised a repair bill of Rs.10,51,565/- which was paid by the insurance company, except for Rs.12,565/- which was paid by the Complainants. Hence, the OP No.2 ( T & T Motors ) is before this Commission now in the present FA.
5. Appellant has challenged the Order dated 05.05.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
The impugned order is silent as to what was the deficiency in service of the Appellant.
The State Commission failed to appreciate the totality of circumstances which prevented the appellants to carry out repairs on the subject vehicle i.e. grant of necessary approvals to start the repairs and also the delay in receipt of parts which were to be replaced in the subject vehicle that were despatched by respondent no.3 and which both the situations were beyond the control of the appellant, as was evident from the documents and submissions on record, which have not been considered and relied by the State Commission.
State Commission has not appreciated the e-mails exchanged between the appellant and Complainant no.1, which clearly demonstrates the lapses on the action on the part of the insurer ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and not the appellant and complainant no.1 never took any steps to array the insurance company as party in the complaint before the State Commission despite the same being a preliminary objection taken by the appellant in their reply.
State Commission did not take into accounts the facts that repairs on the subject vehicle owned by respondent no.1 were to be carried under Insurance claim and for the same there is a procedure to be followed by the Appellant whereby after submission of claim form, the repairs can only be started after the receipt of approvals from the Insurance Surveyor and in absence thereof no work can be carried out by the technical staff employed with Appellant and delay on the part of the Insurance Company in granting the approvals cannot be termed as deficient act on the part of the Appellant.
Some of the requisite parts that needed replacement in the subject vehicle since not being readily available in the stock of the Appellant were to be procured from the manufacturer i.e. respondent no.3, for which timely order was placed by the Appellant which was also being regularly followed-up by them, on account of which also, the repairs remained stalled and same being beyond the control of the Appellant. The State Commission did not look into the said aspect.
State Commission failed to appreciate that subject vehicle was received in the workshop of the appellant following the concerns of water entry in the cabin and on account thereof there were multiple consequential mechanical and electrical losses suffered in the vehicle which could be diagnosed in a phased manner for carrying out repairs, which was again subject to receipt of necessary approvals from the Insurance Company which was a time consuming process.
The appellant had filed the extract of Owner's manual, wherein driving tips during rainy season by the driver, in contravention whereof the original complainant no.2 ( Vineet Aggarwal) had driven the vehicle as result of whereof the vehicle suffered water ingress in the cabin due to which there was consequential damage to electrical and mechanical parts of the vehicle.
The repairs were not covered under the warranty since not being a manufacturing defect rather on account of usage the vehicle in water logged conditions on a rainy day and also the repairs were sought under the Insurance claim, hence assumption of there being a manufacturing defect is without any cogent evidence.
As per mail dated 21.09.2013, respondent no.2 was even offered a courtesy car till the time their vehicle would be in the workshop so that no inconvenience is caused to them due to non availability of the vehicle, but the same was declined by respondent no.2.
State Commission failed to appreciate that due to water ingress in the vehicle there were consequential damage in the machinery affecting the other parts of the vehicle which could be diagnosed pursuant to the performing of work related to initial estimate for damage caused to engine due to water ingress. Further the water was found in automatic transmission and the transmission fluid was flushed out, for which estimate was given for approvals to Insurance Surveyor as the jerks were noticed in the transmission and for which approvals were received on 18.09.2013.
State Commission failed to appreciate that subject vehicle post completion of repairs carried out at the workshop of Appellant was ready as on 06.11.2013 and same was intimated to Insurance Surveyor. Further on 07.11.2013 final invoice was prepared and shared with the Insurance Surveyor requesting him to issue the Delivery Order at the earlier so that vehicle could be delivered to the complainant and for which regular follow up was also done by the Appellant. Finally, the vehicle delivery was taken by the complainant on 18.11.2013 from the workshop of the Appellant. Therefore, the delay was not on account of any act on the part of the appellant.
The liability to pay the compensation under any heads was to be fastened upon the vehicle manufacturer as per various judgments passed by this Commission, which has not been done by the State Commission.
State Commission failed to appreciate that amount of Rs.12,565/- was the balance differential amount of the total invoice of Rs.10,28,215/- raised towards cost of repairs carried out on the subject vehicle which was to be paid by respondent no.1 only, being the excess amount from the total claim of Rs.10,51,650/- claim passed by the Insurance Company and claiming such amount by the appellant does not fall under deficiency of service.
6. Heard learned counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FA, based on their FA/Reply, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1. Counsel for the appellant repeated the points which have been stated in para 5 grounds for challenging the order of State Commission, hence the same are not being repeated here.
6.2 Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2( original complainant nos.1 and 2) apart from reiterating the points which have been stated in para 4, argued that car was at the service center at the time of filing of the complaint, however the same was delivered after inordinate delay of over four months to respondent no.2 ( original complainant no.2) after filing of the complaint. The car was not purchased for official use, hence it is not Commercial purpose. The car suffered from some inherent manufacturing defect which was concealed during the during the sale. Further, it is argued that rainfall alone cannot be the sole cause of the damage. The said car was less than a year old, had been driven less than 20,000 km and was still under warranty even though it had been in an accident. The car broke down on 20.07.2013 and was sent to the Appellant for repair work on account of rainwater entering the cabin of the vehicle. The initial repair estimate of Rs.28,291/- sent on 24.07.2013 was approved by respondents, however the appellant sent a second estimate of Rs.11,67,184/- on 31/07/2013.
6.3 It is further argued by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 that they requested that their car be inspected by the insurance company promptly based on the estimates provided by the appellant on 07.08.2013. The Insurance Company's surveyor inspected the vehicle and recommended repair by appellant. On 28.08.2013, a service advisor of the Appellant stated the needed parts would arrive by 30.08.2013 and the car would be delivered on 06.09.2013, who informed the them that required parts are not available and they had placed an order with an anticipated wait time of 15-17 working days. The respondents filed complaint with CEO of the Appellant. The Appellant instead of delivering the car sent five estimates. Counsel further argued that prolonged delay in delivering the car has resulted in harm and harassment. The respondents faced financial repercussions losing 20% of No Claim Bonus and incurring an extra premium cost of Rs.13.308/-. The respondent no.1 had to pay an additional Rs.12,565/- for the repairs. Further, non availability of necessary parts at the Appellant's workshop and prolonged time taken to procure resulted in harassment constituting deficiency on the part of the appellant.
6.4 Learned counsel for respondent no.3 argued that State Commission did not did not pass any order against the manufacturer i.e. respondent no.3 and hence the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. Further, respondent no.3 has no role to play which could have caused inconvenience to respondent no.1 and only the Appellant is liable for deficiency in service. Counsel further argued that it is stated under the standard warranty terms and conditions by respondent no.3 that vehicle supplied by it are free from defects in material and workmanship and are covered under the warranty for a period of 36 months and while adjudicating a claim, a Commission cannot go against or beyond the terms of warranty and are bound by the terms of warranty and as per warranty terms, respondent no.3 does not undertake to replace the vehicle or reimburse the purchaser by payment of money towards any consequential loss or damages in respect of the vehicle purchased by respondent no.1. Counsel further submitted that relationship between the Appellant and Respondent no.3 is on Principal to Principal and the liability of selling / servicing and repairing of the cars are exclusively provided by the Appellant and not by respondent no.3. The appellant is neither an agent nor an employee of respondent no.3 but a separate and distinct legal entity. Further, it is only in the case of any manufacturing defect that respondent no.3 are required to meet its obligations as per the terms of the warranty. Further, there is no expert report / engineer's report to support or substantiate the allegation of manufacturing defect Respondent no.1 is not a consumer of respondent no.3 within the meaning of Act and vehicle was used to commercial purpose and not for personal use. Further, respondent no.2. is not a consumer as the car was purchased by and registered in the name of respondent no.1 and not in the name of respondent no.2. Counsel further argued that respondent no.1 purchased the subject vehicle from the appellant against consideration by respondent no.1 to the Appellant and any order for replacement of the subject vehicle can only be passed against the appellant. A standby vehicle was also offered to the complainants by the Appellant which shows that neither there was any deficiency on the part of respondent no.3 nor any contractual arrangement existed between the complainants and respondent no.3.
6.5. Learned counsel further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.3 as vehicle had been regularly used by respondent no.1 without any trouble of any nature and had covered 45884 km as on 10.03.2015 and respondent no.1 had been comfortably using the car for a long time and had never raised any issue, grievance or complaint with respect to inherent defect in the car. Further, the damage caused to the vehicle is due to the vehicle mishandling or while being driven not in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. Further, respondent no.3 has provided prompt and required assistance to respondent no.1 as and when sought and on account of the insurance company process being beyond the control of respondent no.3, it cannot be held liable as the vehicle was sought to be repaired under the insurance claim.
6.6. It is further contended by learned counsel for respondent no.3 that respondent no.1 paid Rs.12,565/- out of the total insurance claim amount being Rs.10,51,650/-. Counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court / National Commission :
a. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. G.S. Fertilizers ( P) Ltd-First Appeal No. 723 of 2006 b. M/s Pharos Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. and Ors. CC No. 306 of 2024 c. Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute, II ( 1995) CPJ (SC) d. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand and Anr.-RP No. 827 of 2004 e. Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra - 206 ( 4) SCC 644 f. Tata Motors Limited Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz, Civil Appeal no. 574 of 2021 g. Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Syed Hasan Bukhari and Anr. - RP No. 1235 of 2014 h. Bank of Baroda Vs. Arvind Modern Dal and Rice Mill 1996 (1) PJ 43 i. Godfrey Philips ( India ) Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar ( 2008 ) 4 SC 504 j. M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd.- RP No. 1588 of 2006 k. Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birendera Narain Prasad ( 2010) 3 CPJ 130 ( NC)
7. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, other relevant records, rival contentions of the parties and case laws relied upon by the parties. The State Commission relying on the judgment of this Commission in Crompton Greaves Limited and Ors. Vs. Dailer Chrysler India Private Limited and Ors. IV ( 2016) CPJ 469 ( NC) has appropriately and correctly addressed the issue of Complainants being the consumers and we are in agreement with its findings. The State Commission has given a well reasoned order. The car in question was high end car costing more than Rs.27.00 lacs. Delay of 4 months in repairing the car is not justified, especially when the car in question was under the warranty. This has caused great inconvenience, mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. In the given facts and circumstances, the award of compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- by the State Commission is justified. Extract of relevant paras of State Commission with respect to the deficiency in service are reproduced below :
"10. The fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question on 26.11.2012 from opposite party no. 2 is not in dispute from the material on record. It is further clear from the record that the said vehicle broke down on 20.07.2013 and was taken to the garage of the opposite party no. 2 on the same day.
11. On perusal of record before us, it is clear that the said car was delivered by the opposite party no. 2 to the complainants after around 4 months from the date of the incident i.e. 20.07.2013. It is evident from the material before us that the opposite party no. 2 raised a bill of Rs. 10,51,565 /-, which was paid by the insurance company but the complainants had to pay Rs. 12,565/- towards repair.
12. The opposite parties have failed to show any documentary evidence to this commission which shows that the car broke down on 20.07.2013 due to the negligence on the part of complainants or due to the violation of instructions contained in Owner's manual. Mere bald statement of the opposite parties will not justify their action of delivering the said vehicle to the complainants after 4 months. Therefore, we are in consonance with the contention of the complainants that the said car suffers from some manufacturing defects which were suppressed by the opposite parties.
13. It is evident from the record before us that the vehicle in question was under warranty at the relevant time and some major defect was there that took 4 months for the opposite party no. 2 to resolve the issue. In our opinion, therefore, the complainant no. 2 was put to great inconvenience and remained without a vehicle for 4 months. There is no denying of the fact that the complainant no. 2 was at senior position and was the Vice President of the complainant no. 1.
14. Accordingly, we deem it proper that the complainants must get compensated for the deficient acts of the opposite party no. 2 and therefore, we direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for inconvenience, mental agony and harassment faced by the complainants and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs within three months from today.
15. In case the Opposite Party no. 2 fails to pay the aforesaid amount within three months from today, the entire amount is to be paid with an interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of the present judgment till the actual realization of the amount."
8. In Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the word "compensation" has a broad connotation, including actual or expected loss and extending to compensation for physical, mental, or emotional suffering, insult, injury, or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim compensation and empower the commission to redress any injustice done. In Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) 7 SCC 668, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Consumer Forums, while quantifying damages, must strive to serve justice by awarding compensation that not only compensates the individual but also aims to change the service provider's attitude. The calculation of damages depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and no universal rule can be applied. Compensation must be assessed based on legal principles and moderation, with the Consumer Forum determining what is reasonable and fair. Additionally, the quality of the respondent's conduct in cases of proven negligence is crucial.
9. In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission in terms of award of compensation for deficiency in service and the quantum of compensation and we endorse the same. Hence, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Accordingly, First Appeal is dismissed.
10. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER