National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Amit Thaman vs M/S. Banarsi Dass Automobiles Limited & ... on 13 August, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1931 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2015 in Appeal No. 1121/2014 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. AMIT THAMAN SON OF SH. SHYAM SUNDER THAMAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.65, GOVIND VIHAR,BALTANA,ZIRAKPUR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. BANARSI DASS AUTOMOBILES LIMITED & 2 ORS. PLOT NO.198, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE 2, PANCHKULA HARYANA 2. M/S TATA MOTORS LIMITED, SCO NO.364-365-366,2ND FLOOR, SECTOR 34A, CHANDIGARH 3. M/S TATA MOTORS LIMITED PASSENGER CAR BUSINESS UNIT, KD-03, CAR PLANT, SEC 15 AND 15A, PCNTDA, CHIKHALI, PUNE-410501 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 13 Aug 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. Sh. Amit Thaman, the complainant, purchased a new car on 01.09.2011 from M/s. Banarsi Dass Automobiles Ltd., Panchkula, OP1. It was manufactured by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Passenger Car Business Unit, OP3. The car covered 6700 kms and started giving trouble in pick-up and was missing. The car was taken to OP1 for second 'free service', on 26.03.2012. Assy and inter-cooler were changed. The problem again cropped up after 5-6 months. The car was again taken to OP1 on 10.09.2012 and the car had covered a distance of 12,807 kms. On that occasion, Turbo compressor, vacuum accumulator, vacuum pump on alternator and turbo of the engine were replaced. The complainant was informed that there was some engine problem and the said defect was removed.
2. The said problem developed again and the vehicle was taken to OP1 on 19.11.2012. Till then, the car had covered 16,000 kms. Again, at that time, kit assy lock set immob-illu ring inbts, lock kit complete, were replaced. The problem again developed when the car had covered 17,300 kms. For same problem, the car was taken to OP1. The OP 1, on 15.01.2013, 08.02.2013 (when the car had covered 19,400 kms), 18.02.2013 (when the car had covered 20,350 kms) and again on 08.05.2013 (when the car had covered 21,450 kms), took the car. On the last occasion, the engine was opened for re-assembling, but it could not produce the desired result. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.2,500/- per day. Consequently, the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that OP1 be directed to refund the sale price of Rs.6,50,542/-, along with interest @ 18% p.a., besides compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. The OP1 contended that after covering a distance of 6,780 kms, there was a problem of oil leakage and that is why, the parts were changed, 'free of cost' and the complainant was satisfied. Thereafter, the car covered 12,807 kms, without any problem. On 19.11.2012, the car, after covering 16,161 kms, was taken for replacement of kit assy, lock set, lock kit complete and for checking of A/C system. There was no other complaint. After covering a distance of 17,486 kms, it transpired that the speedometer was not clear and new software was installed. Again, door lock was replaced after it had covered 19,443 kms. Fourth 'free service' was done on 18.02.2013, but there was no complaint of missing or pick-up. After covering a distance of 21,579 kms, the complainant complained about engine trouble. The problem was attended to and the repair was done to the satisfaction of the complainant.
4. OPs 2 & 3 alleged that the complainant did not follow the guidelines mentioned in the 'Operators' Service Book'. There was no manufacturing defect.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to refund the price of the car, with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization. It also awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs.5,000/-.
6. Appeal was filed before the State Commission, by the OPs. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and directed OP 3 to replace the engine of the car with new one. OP1 was directed to provide the service, free of cost. It also directed that after replacement of engine, it will have the new warranty from that date of installment, till the length of period as provided at the time of purchase of vehicle. Order regarding compensation and litigation expenses was upheld.
7. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.
8. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant argued that during warranty period, the Engineers of OPs tried their level best by replacing 61 parts of the vehicle, as could be easily counted from the job cards, which included major parts of the engine, air conditioning, turbo compressor, locks, oil leakage, etc., but still the vehicle could not be made road-worthy, on account of manufacturing defect therein. The entire engine of the car was dismantled thrice, but the vehicle, still, could not be made road-worthy. The above said defects were manufacturing defects, which could not be rectified.
9. It was also argued that the District Forum, vide order dated 30.09.2013, ordered that the vehicle in question be sent to the Director Principal, Punjab Engineering and University of Technology, Sector-12, Chandigarh, for giving Expert Report. The Expert gave the following opinion, dated 07.11.2013 :-
"This is with reference to the letter No.968, dated 23.10.2013. The vehicle in question was brought before the committee for inspection on 06.11.2013 in the Mechanical Engineering Department of the Institute by Sh. Amit Thaman, the complainant. No persons from the opposite parties were present during the inspection and test drive of the vehicle.
The vehicle having registration No.PB65P 1865, Engine No.101A20000125144, Chassis No. MAT-613081-ALP-36793 was presented for inspection by Sh. Amit Thaman.
The vehicle in question was inspected and test driven for about 5 kms.
The committee is of the opinion that there is severe problem of pick-up of the vehicle even at very high throttling and if the problem of missing and pick-up is from the beginning (as informed by the complainant), the problem may be attributed to the manufacturing defect".
10. All these arguments lack conviction. The car had already run upto 22,000 kms. At this stage, it will not be proper to ask the OPs to refund the price. The order passed by the learned State Commission should be read, holistically. The complainant has got twin benefits. First of all, the engine would be changed and secondly, the warranty shall stand revived which, naturally, will cover every part. No merit. Dismissed.
......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER