State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri.Prakash Laxman Chanderkar vs Tata Motors Ltd on 5 July, 2018
1 (A/17/910)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/17/910
(Arisen out of Judgment and order dated 12/07/2017 passed by Ld.South
Mumbai District Forum in complaint No.25 of 2017)
Shri.Prakash Laxman Chanderkar
R/at-Block #4,
Ashirwad Bldg., 262,
Dr.Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai 400 030. Appellant(s)
versus
Tata Motors Ltd.,
Bombay House,
24 Homi Modi Street,
Fort,
Mumbai 400 001. Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT:
For the Appellant: In person
For the Respondent: Advocate Shri.Ashutosh Marathe
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
[1] Heard. By this appeal the grievance of the appellant / complainant is that the cause of action accrued on 02/07/2016 and limitation ended on midnight on 01/07/2018, complaint was filed on 04/02/2017, therefore the complaint was well within period of limitation. The grievance of the appellant is that by the impugned order, Ld.District Forum did not properly explained as to when cause of action accrued and under which facts and circumstances of the case. There were technical grounds which ought to have been considered.
2 (A/17/910) [2] According to the complainant he had bought Nano LX - silver car with chassis No.MAT612251AYA04253 with registration No.MH-01-AR- 3571. The car was bought from the opponent. According to the complainant there was failure of the coolant system in the car. He argued that he himself is a Mechanical Engineer. In the month of February 2016 when he was driving on the Mumbai Goa road suddenly coolant light turned red, he checked the coolant level in the radiator and found that the radiator did not have any fluid. He drove the car believing that that was all normal with that model and returned from Sindhudurg to Mumbai. Few months later complainant faced similar failure of the coolant system. He filled the radiator with coolant and drove the car. Thus again on 02/05/2016 he had faced missing coolant problem. Thus frequently according to him he had faced those problems. According to the complainant who himself is experienced Mechanical Engineer, found that design of coolant system in the Nano car is totally bad and it is a major defect and design error of massive proportion. He had asked opponent to order general recall of all 'Nano' cars on the road. It was duty of the opponent to recall all the 'Nano' cars and to give some refitting part to the cooling system. He contended that, he discovered major structural design defect in the car on or around 11/07/2016 and he had averted an accident with the truck on a fly-over while he was driving the car had started to sway uncontrollably on the road to the left and right, due to the defect car becoming uncontrollable as it was impossible to keep the car in desired lane. The car moved to the right several inches and to the left several inches of its own. Complainant concluded that the steering wheel had totally failed. He had taken car to Concord Motors, Worli. The Technician immediately stated that, it was the problem due to the rusted bottom part of the car. Technician then turned the steering wheel left and right and showed that how the rusted part of the bottom plate moved right and left without affecting the angular position of the wheels. According to the complainant the wheel angular position did not alter with the motion of the steering wheel. Thus, it is a grievance the 3 (A/17/910) complainant that the complainant was not properly attended. All the 'Nano' cars on the road are structurally same. Therefore, he wanted to raise the general issue of structural design error and asked the opponent to give general recall of all the 'Nano' cars on the road and offer a refit to reinforce the structural parts which support the steering mechanism. He imputed that the opponent has gone to the extent of making a clearly false statement in it's reply for which executives of the opponent must be criminally prosecuted for cheating. In these facts and circumstances, complainant had approached Ld.District Forum with prayer to declare that there was deficiency in service on the part of opponent and also unfair trade practice under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prayed that the opponent be directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.8,59,429/- with interest including the sum of Rs.2,09,287/- being the sum paid at the time of delivery of the car by the complainant alongwith other reliefs.
[3] The averments general in nature as also the prayers in the complaint reflects that the complainant is interested in relief of broad direction to the opponent to recall the 'Nano' cars on the road and to take corrective measures in respect of certain portions of the car engine to make it roadworthy.
[4] Ld.Advocate Shri. Marathe for the respondent vehemently objected on the ground that the complainant is not a 'consumer' at all and that Ld.District Forum was right to reject the complaint on the point of limitation from the date of cause of action.
Advocate Shri.Marathe also contended that the issue of design and structure of the 'Nano', cannot be agitated before Consumer Fora. At this stage, in this regard, we cannot express our opinion on merits. It is to be decided by the Ld.District Forum upon evidence. Ld.District Forum to consider all the points raised by the parties including pecuniary limits of jurisdiction in case. If it holds that the consumer dispute is beyond 4 (A/17/910) pecuniary jurisdiction of the Fora, Ld.District Forum may pass the order for return of consumer complaint to be presented in appropriate Forum.
[5] We have considered the averments made in the complaint as also the explanation. According to the complainant complaint was filed within limitation. Considering the averments as against the opponent, complainant was interested in broad type of class action against the opponent, requiring the Forum to hold opponent blame-worthy for deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice in respect of defects as alleged in Nano cars. It is under these circumstances, we feel that considering averments made in the complaint and prayers thereon, Ld.Forum could have directed the complainant to issue public notice in leading newspapers at least two in number so that Ld.Forum could have after issuance of publication of such notice, consider the grievance of the complainant which was broadly against the manufacturing Car Company regarding defects in the Nano cars and then to decide the complaint on merits in accordance with law.
In this regard, we are fortified with the view by the latest ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in consumer complaint No. 318 of 2017 between Mahajan Imaging Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Tata Communication Limited wherein Hon'ble National Commission directed the complainant to take out notice of the institution of the complaint, in the prescribed form, and get the same published in daily 'Statesman' (English) and 'Navbharat Times' (Hindi).
In our view, therefore, we set aside impugned Order and direct the complainant to issue a public notice in the leading newspapers such as Indian Express, Free Press Journal (English daily newspaper) and Hindi newspaper such as 'Navbharat Times' and 'Navshakti' etc., at the choice of the complainant which can inform the public in general about defects in 'Nano' cars manufactured by the opponent so that complainant's grievance can be supported and considered as a class action. We make such public notice returnable before Ld.Forum on 28/09/2018 at 10.30 a.m. Appeal 5 (A/17/910) is disposed of. No order as to costs. Ld.Forum below to take decision according to law on merits of contentions before it.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties. Pronounced on 5th July, 2018.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [Dr.S.K.KAKADE] MEMBER rsc