State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Prasanta Kumar Paul vs Tata Motors Ltd. on 18 August, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Complaint Case No. CC/6/2014 1. Prasanta Kumar Paul S/o Mr. Prodesh Chandra Paul, Flat No.449, Rail Vihar, 480- Madurdaha, EKTP, Kolkata - 700 107. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Tata Motors Ltd. Rene Towers, 2nd Floor, 1842, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107. 2. Lexus Motors Ltd. Regd. office at 209, A.J.C. Bose Road, 'Karnani Estate' Beckbagan, Kolkata - 700 017 ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Complainant: Mr. Rajesh Biswas, Mr. Sibaji Sankar Dhar, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Mr. Asutosh Das, Advocate Mr. Saikat Mali, Advocate Dated : 18 Aug 2017 Final Order / Judgement
HON'BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT This is an application under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed at the instance of the complainant/consumer who claimed himself to be a victim of deficiency of service, to be provided by the OPs as manufacturer cum dealer of the vehicle.
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant was that the complainant intended to purchase a vehicle having at least 200 m.m. ground clearance and four wheel drive capacity so that he could travel various tourist spots in hilly stations. The complainant further stated that in order to serve the specific requirements like comfortable driving in hilly stations, he visited the OP no. 2, Lexus Motors Ltd. in December, 2011 and at the very first approach, the complainant made it clear to the OP no. 2 that he intended to purchase a vehicle having four wheel driving capability and a ground clearance at least 200 m.m. and the OP no. 2 made it clear to the complainant that unless the vehicle confirms to both the requirements/specifications he would not be able to purchase such vehicle. On being approached by the complainant the OP no. 2 advised the complainant to opt for a TATA make vehicle viz. Tata Aria Pride, as it confirmed both the specific requirements having ground clearance of more than 200 m.m. and four wheel drive capability. The complainant was under impression that Tata Safari 4 WD would be a better option but he was represented that Tata Aria Pride was a technically upgraded and sound vehicle and as it confirmed both these specific requirements of the complainant it was advised to go for a Tata Aria Pride and on being advised by the OP no. 2, the petitioner sought for the car manual in order to praiseworthiness of the representation made by the OP no. 2 as regards these specifications of 'Tata Aria Pride' but was represented that such car manual was not readily available. The OP no. 2 handed over a brochure to the complainant having specifications of such vehicles to which the complainant placed reliance and opted for 'Tata Aria Pride' vehicle and purchase the same from the OP no. 2 in lieu of valuable for consideration of Rs. 14,96,336/- (Rupees fourteen lakh ninety six thousand three hundred thirty six) and on full payment of consideration the vehicle was handed over and delivered to the complainant on 20/01/2012 and the same vehicle was allotted and the registration no. WB 06 J2283, the car owner's Manual Service Book was handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle and after examining the brochure handed over to him at the time of delivery of the vehicle the complainant came to know that he was induced to opt for Tata Aria Pride which did not correctly project the specifications of the vehicle in question particularly as regards to its ground clearance. The complainant further stated that the OP no. 1 being the manufacturer of the Tata Aria Pride ought to have been honest enough in disclosing its specifications in the brochure and should not have made false and misleading declarations. It is also stated by the complainant that the OP no. 2 being an authorized dealer of the OP no. 1 was also quite aware of the exact specifications of Tata Aria Pride but made false statements and representations to the complainant induced him to purchase the vehicle which was not enough to meet his specific requirements.
Being aggrieved by such misleading of the Opposite Parties herein, the complainant made several representations to the OPs which included the manufacturer and dealer but no result yielded though OP no. 2 in reply to the complainant's letter dated 13/01/2011 admitted its fault and assure to make good the loss and damages suffered by the complainant but ultimately did nothing against the grievance, ventilated by the complainant in his different representations which are made annexures herewith and compelled the complainant to take recourse of this Commission claiming reliefs including refund of the consideration and compensation in terms of the prayer of the petition of complaint in CC/6/2014 including the refund of the consideration and compensation.
The OPs no. 1 &2 in their separate written version dated 06/01/2015 denied the cause of action as averred in the body of the petition of complaint and the OP no. 1 denied its liability to the present complainant on the ground that the OP no. 1 was not directly involved with the customer in dealing with his business transactions but it did so through his dealer concerned. It was further contended by the OP no. 1 that being a well established and reputed concern of car manufacturing, it was not directly involved with the business of the complainant herein and that the authorized dealer (i.e. the OP no. 2 herein) was responsible for not supplying pre-delivery inspection of all new cars/utility vehicles before selling it to the customers as per the standard checklist. Denying its vicarious liability, the OP no. 1 categorically stated that the Tata Aria Pride to which the complainant was differentiating to a comprehensive brochure which provides only the best of the features available in the area categorically and it is the owners of the complainant to read the car manual carefully to a certain specific features available in particular model prior to deciding to purchase the vehicle of his choice. The OP no. 1 further denied exercise of fraud on its part or unfair trade practice since the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant at his own will and the OP no. 1 did not get any scope to give proper advice of the customer.
The OP no. 2 in its written version categorically denied all the material allegations in addition to the above defence taken by OP no. 1 as stated in its written version and contended that after a long use of the vehicle the complainant's case has been filed against the OP no. 2 which has got no role to play nor he got any benefit therefrom and accordingly the OP no. 2 did not admit its liability with regard to the allegations of the complainant that the OP no. 2 was equally responsible to that of the OP no. 1, for not giving proper service to the complainant.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant in course of hearing drew our attention to page 33 of the file and pointed out that being insisted by the OP no. 2/Lexus Motors Ltd. his client Prasanta Kumar Paul paid the entire consideration to the tune of Rs. 14,24,336/- (Rupees fourteen lakh twenty four thousand three hundred thirty six) towards the purchase of Tata Aria Pride Black (annexure-'B') and the brochure supplied by the OP no. 1 through the OP no. 2 (pages no.30 & 31 of the file) that the ground clearance of the vehicle as described under the heading 'dimensions and weights' clearly indicated that 200 m.m. ground clearance would be available if his client liked to purchase the Tata Aria Pride model. The document being part of the brochure which is at page 198 of the file clearly reflects that the ground clearance of the Tata Aria Pride was 185 m.m. and the only Tata Pleasure 4 X 4 having ground clearance of 200 m.m.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued with reference to the annexure -'E' (which at page 213 of the file), through his Advocate's letter dated 30/01/2012 his client expressed his grievance and on acceptance of such grievance by the authority of the OP no. 2 (which is at page 215 of the file -annexure 'F') justifying the raise of grievance of the complainant having been misinformed by the dealer who pushed the disputed/defective vehicle when the complainant categorically stated that as per his personal requirement he wanted to purchase Tata Safari Dicor VX 2.2L 4X3 but the client was influenced to purchase the vehicle Tata Aria Pride in place of his requirement. The documents as produced on behalf of the complainant for not providing a car according to the assured representation by Lexus Motors cannot be dealt with so easily denying his claim for replacing or return of consideration and compensation etc., on the plea that he plied the vehicle for a couple of months and raised his grievance thereafter. The argument as advanced by Ld. Counsel for the OP no. 1 (Tata Motors) that the complainant faced any difficulty in plying the vehicle in a hilly area has not been proved by producing any documents or evidence. Such an alibi as taken by the OP herein cannot be said to be worthful particularly when the allegations by the complainants, the OPs have not only been admitted but proved by the documents produced on their behalf as referred to earlier. The documents (at annexure 'A' & 'B') coupled with the admission as reflected from the officials of the OP no. 2 (annexure - 'F') led us to come to the conclusion that the OPs herein practiced fraud upon the complainant in dealing with the business of selling vehicles by way of influencing the consumer (complainant herein) and the OP no. 1 cannot be absolved from its liability rather he is vicariously liable for the fault of its agent (the OP no. 2 herien).
Hence, on the basis of the materials on record we firmly conclude that the OPs are jointly and severally liable for paying compensation for deficiency of service and litigation costs etc. It is admitted that the complainant is enjoying the vehicle since the date of its purchase and for that reason he is not entitled to get any interest in respect of the consideration paid to the OP no. 2 and some sort of reliefs can be given to the OP no. 2 while directing him to pay the compensation to the complainant. Since the complainant was the victim of fraud and deficiency of service he should be compensated and the cost of litigation should be awarded in his favour. Taking into account the fact that the consideration paid by the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle on 31/12/2011 (Annexure-'B'), we are of the opinion that a substantial amount of compensation should be awarded to the complainant for making over the loss suffered by him. Accordingly, we allow the complainant case in part and it is held that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh). The complainant is also entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) for his mental agony and harassment. He is further entitled to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards litigation cost. The OPs are directed to make payment of the said decretal amount to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps according to law. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER