State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parikshit Chauhan vs Tata Motors Ltd.,&Anr.; on 18 July, 2013
First Appeal Nos. 118/2012 & 133/2012 H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. (1) First Appeal No: 331/2012. Date of Decision: 18.07.2013. .................... 1. JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd., National Highway 20, Ghurkari, Tehsil & Distt. Kangra, H.P., Through its Managing Director. 2. Tata Motors Ltd., Telco Passenger Car Business Unit, K.D. Block, Timtri, Pune-411018, Through its Authorized Signatory. Appellants. Versus Parikshit Chauhan son of Sh. Raghunath Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Bathra, Tehsil Jaswan, Distt. Kangra, H.P. Respondent. For the Appellants: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Inder Dutt Bhardwaj, Advocate. .......... (2) First Appeal No: 58/2013. Date of Decision: 18.07.2013. Parikshit Chauhan, S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh, R/o Village & P.O. Bathra, Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, H.P. Appellant. Versus 1. Tata Motors Ltd., Telco Passenger Car Business Unit, K.D. Block, Timtri, Pune-411018, Through its President (Sales and Marketing). 2. JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd., Near Kilo Meter Stone, National Highway 20, Ghurkari, Tehsil & District Kangra, H.P., Through its Manager. Respondents. ....... Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. Inder Dutt Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, i.e. F.A. No. 331/2012 filed by JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (opposite parties) and F.A. No.58/2013, filed by Parikshit Chauhan (complainant), as both of them are directed against the same orders, viz., order dated 29.09.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala.
2. Parikshit Chauhan, complainant, purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle from appellant-JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd., on 1st January, 2010, with a warranty for two years or 75,000 kms. distance coverage, whichever happened earlier. Complaint was filed on 13.07.2011, alleging that soon after its purchase, vehicle started giving trouble and it had to be taken to the workshop of the appellant-JKR Motors for repairs on several occasions. It was alleged that despite repeated check-ups and repairs, defects persisted, which JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called opposite party No.2) could not remove. According to the complainant, persistence of defects indicated that the vehicle had manufacturing defect and so it was required to be replaced with a new one. He sought issuance of a direction for replacement of vehicle or refund of its price, besides payment of compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Separate replies were filed by the opposite parties, but the objections and the pleas raised therein were similar. It was stated that vehicle had been brought to the workshop of JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party No.2) twenty-one times after its purchase and that five times the vehicle had been brought for routine free service and fourteen times for minor running repairs like wheel balancing etc., including replacement of a wheel cylinder. It was stated that no major defect had ever been reported by the complainant and that every time the vehicle was brought to the workshop, it had been repaired to his satisfaction and he recorded notes of satisfaction on the job cards and when there were complaints about replacement of any part, he submitted his satisfaction notes separately, in addition to recording satisfaction on the job cards. It was also stated that one major defect was pointed out only after filing of complaint, which pertained to ECU, and that for that the vehicle had been brought to the workshop on 18.08.2011. It was pleaded that the ECU costing `22,000/- had been replaced free of cost.
4. Learned District Forum relying upon the decision of Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.2207 of 2007, titled Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Naveen Nishal, decided on 7th August, 2012, held that the very fact that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop of opposite party No.2 for twenty-one times during a period of about one-and-a-half year, indicated that it had some serious problem and with this finding, ordered the opposite parties to pay `40,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- on account of litigation expenses and to rectify the defects in the vehicle without charging any money.
5. Opposite parties are aggrieved by the order and have filed F.A. No.331 of 2012. According to them, the vehicle did not suffer from any major defect and that it was only once and that too, after the filing of complaint that a major defect was brought to their notice by the complainant and they removed the same by replacing the ECU free of cost. They have, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
6. Complainant is also aggrieved by the order and he seeks its modification in the fashion that the entire relief claimed in the complaint is granted.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Opposite parties placed on record copies of job cards pertaining to each and every repair/service carried out free of cost, during the warranty period. Job cards are Annexures OP2-2, OP2-3, OP2-4, OP2-6, OP2-9, OP2-11, OP2-14, OP2-16, OP2-19, OP2-22, OP2-27, OP2-31, OP2-34, OP2-36, OP2-39, OP2-41, OP2-43, OP2-45, OP2-47, OP2-49 and OP2-51. Details of defects reported/pointed out/noticed and the action taken is indicated in Schedule hereto.
9. From a bare look at the schedule, it is more than clear that the defects, which were noticed/pointed out, were of minor nature. Vehicle had covered a distance of 46,282 kms. when it was checked/repaired on 01.07.2011. Complaint was filed on 13.07.2011, alleging manufacturing defect, but no manufacturing defect had been noticed/reported by that date. On 18.08.2011, or say more than a month after filing of the complaint, vehicle was again taken to the workshop of opposite party No.2 with the complaint of silencer noise. On check-up, ECU was found to be defective and was replaced, free of cost.
10. Appellant placed on record a report, Annexure C-15, given by one Shri Arun Sethi of Sethi Automobiles of Village Nehranpuhkar, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. on a loose paper, per which following defects are there in the vehicle:-
a) Service light not working;
b) Engine running not static;
c) Silencer touches with chassis;
d) Air filter sensor broken;
e) ECU grip damaged;
f) Left side rear door requires adjustment;
g) Right side front door requires adjustment;
11. This report is undated and it appears that the person, who gave the report, is semi-literate, as we find a number of spelling mistakes in the report, which is partly in English and partly in Hindi. Also, the defects noticed in the report are minor. On the contrary, opposite parties have submitted affidavits of all those engineers and mechanics, who attended the vehicle upto the date of filing of complaint, as also subsequent thereto, and as per their affidavits, vehicle does not suffer from any defect, leave alone a manufacturing defect.
12. Precedent relied upon by the learned District Forum does not come to the rescue of the complainant. Facts of the case used as precedent, were that the vehicle (car) had defective engine, which was replaced, but even after replacement, the engine did not function and it was because of this reason that it was held that even in the absence of the report of the expert, complaint can be allowed and upheld the order of the State Commission for refund of price of the car with interest and payment of compensation. In the present case, as already noticed, the defects were minor and had been rectified/removed free of cost, during the warranty period.
13. In view of the above stated position, appeal filed by the opposite parties, i.e. F.A. No.331 of 2012, titled JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Parikshit Chauhan, is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.09.2012 set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. On account of allowing of the connected appeal, i.e. F.A. No.331 of 2012 and consequential dismissal of the complaint, F.A. No.58 of 2013 filed by the complainant, Parikshit Chauhan, for replacement of the vehicle or in the alternative, for refund of price of the vehicle, is dismissed.
14. This order be placed on the record of F.A. No. 331/2012 and its authenticated copy on the record of F.A. No.58/2013.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member July 18, 2013.
DC Dhiman) SCHEDULE Sr. No Job Card, Annexure Mark with date and mileage Defect reported / pointed out/ noticed Action Taken Remarks
1. OP2-2 05.02.2010 1,147 Routine First Free Service Service done without charging anything
2. OP2-3 15.03.2010 5,206 Routine Second Free Service Service done without charging anything
3. OP2-4 05.05.2010 11,338 Miscellaneous + wheel alignment Defects removed free of cost
4. OP2-6 05.06.2010 14,592 Third free service Service done without charging anything Satisfaction of the complainant recorded both on the job card as also on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-8.
5. OP2-9 15.07.2010 18,538 Miscellaneous + washing and vacuuming Job done free of costs
6. OP2-11 22.07.2010 19,253 Miscellaneous, Rear door problem Removed Satisfaction of complainant recorded on the job card as also on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-13.
7. OP2-14 13.08.2010 21,131 Washing, vacuuming and standard checks Job done Satisfaction recorded on the job card
8. OP2-16 31.08.2010 22,526 Miscellaneous, rear door and service light Job carried out Satisfaction recorded on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-18.
9. OP2-19 20.09.2010 24,694 Break light and fuel leakage.
Repair carried out Satisfaction recorded on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-21.
10. OP2-22 12.10.2010 25,906 Break Pads, washing and vacuuming Breaks replaced Satisfaction recorded on a separate sheet Annexure OP2-25.
11. OP2-27 10.11.2010 26,965 Balance wheel, washing and vacuuming Job carried out Satisfaction recorded on the job card as also on separate sheet, Annexure OP2-29/30.
12. OP2-51 26.10.2010 28,586 Rear wheel cylinders, Brake fluid leakage/rear left hand door check.
Defects removed Satisfaction recorded on separate sheet, Annexure OP2-53.
13. OP2-31 13.12.2010 29,687 Miscellaneous + fog lamp fitting and fourth free service Job carried out Satisfaction recorded on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-33.
14. OP2-34 08.01.2011 30,484 Speedometer not working Speed sensor replaced free of cost
15. OP2-36 22.01.2011 31,023 Miscellaneous + vehicle check-up Job carried out Satisfaction recorded on job card and on a separate sheet, Annexure OP2-38.
16. OP2-39 15.02.2011 32,776 Standard Checks.
Job Carried out Satisfaction recorded on the job card.
17. OP2-41 11.03.2011 35,180 Washing and vacuuming, under chassis noise check Job carried out
18. OP2-43 09.05.2011 40,283 Washing and vacuuming Job carried out
19. OP2-45 16.05.2011 40,394 Miscellaneous+ vehicle check-up Job carried out
20. OP2-47 01.07.2011 43,879 Fifth free service Job carried out and brake pads replaced.
Satisfaction recorded on the job card
21. OP2-49 18.08.2011 46,282 Check Engine Job carried out (Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?