State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Limited vs Ran Singh on 18 March, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 18-03-2011 Case No. FA-10/77 (Arising from the order dated 16-12-2009 passed in Case No. 732/2006 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi). TATA MOTORS LIMITED, - APPELLANT Bombay House, 24- Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk, Mumbai 400001 TATA SALES AND SERVICE, No.1, Gazipur Patparganj, Delhi 110096 THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER TATA MOTORS LIMITED, Commercial Vehicles Division, Jeewan Tara Building, 5- Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER Versus SHRI RAN SINGH - RESPONDENT/CAVEATOR Son of Late Shri Ishwar Singh, Resident of 2655, Main Bazar Shadipur, New Delhi - 110008 CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President MS KANWAL INDER - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? MS KANWAL INDER ORDER
1. Vide this appeal, the appellant (respondent in the original complaint) has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16-12-2009 passed in the complaint case No. 732/2006 by District Consumer Forum II New Delhi whereby the appellant was directed to replace the truck bearing Chassis No. 452020 to the respondent (complainant in the original complaint) with new one or pay him Rs. 10,43,749.37p after taking back the chassis, Rs. Two lakhs, as compensation.
2. The appeal is being contested by the respondent who has filed reply.
3. We have heard arguments and have perused the record.
4. There is no dispute regarding the facts that the respondent purchased truck in question from the appellant on 23-12-2005 for a sum of Rs. 10,43,749.37p with warranty for 18 months and/or 1,50,000 kms whichever is earlier. The Respondent spent Rs. 3,12,000/- towards its body, National Permit, Insurance Certificate and Registration Certificate and other miscellaneous expenses and thereafter this vehicle was allotted registration no. DL-1GB 5819. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of appellant for repairs on 22-01-2006, 25-01-2006, 04-02-2006, 27-02-2006, 19-02-2006, 11-04-2006, 13-04-2006, 28-04-2006, 11-05-2006, 12-05-2006, 27-05-2006, 04-06-2006, 28-06-2006, 09-07-2006, 13-07-2006, 01-08-2006, 10-08-2006, 22-08-2006, 21-09-2006, 29-09-2006 and 18-09-2006. On 27-10-2006 the respondent issued legal notice to the appellant.
5. After serving legal notice, the respondent has filed the complaint on 29-11-2006 on the grounds that the said vehicle started giving trouble in the engine etc. He complained to the appellant for removing defects in engine, diesel pump, crown wheels, excess consumption of diesel, electronic system and various other defects which were manufacturing defects and which could not be rectified.
Despite being taken to the workshop of the appellant during the first year itself the vehicle did not function properly, because of which the respondent suffered loss in his goodwill, reputation, social circle and monetary losses and the vehicle was not replaced despite repeated requests.
6. Version of the appellant/OP is that the vehicle in question does not suffer from any manufacturing defect whatsoever. All the grievances of the respondent regarding minor defects were duly carried out to his satisfaction. The defects pointed out by him as diesel pump, crown wheel etc are routine problems which has to be taken care during normal service and all what they need is minor adjustment and replacement of parts.
These problems arise due to wear and tear of the running of the vehicle and the same are necessary consequences of the use and running of vehicle and not due to any defect in the vehicle. The vehicle was lastly reported on 27-10-2006 when the respondent complained of low pick up and excessive smoke and low fuel average. All the defects were duly attended to the satisfaction of the respondent. On checking, emission level of pollution was found within permissible limit. For low fuel average and low pick up the appellant had conducted a trial alongwith the complainant/respondent in May 2006 and the vehicle during the said period covered 500 kms and a satisfaction note was signed. Till 27-10-2006 the vehicle had covered more than 75,000 kms which speaks volume that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect whatsoever.
A preliminary objection has been raised that the respondent is not a consumer as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose.
7. In rejoinder the respondent denied the contention/objections of the appellant and interalia pleaded that he purchased the truck for the purpose of self employment. The various defects complained are due to manufacturing defects, life of the crown wheel is normally 3-4 years but it was replaced two times in a year. In the same manner fuel pump has been replaced one time and repaired one time and the Speedo-meter has been changed two times.
8. Vide the impugned order the District Forum after considering the respective contention of the parties has over ruled the objection of the appellant on the ground that the respondent has filed evidence including his affidavit that he is using the said truck for earning his livelihood while the appellant has not filed any evidence or any document to show that the respondent was having more than one truck or vehicles used for commercial purposes and hence the case relied upon by the appellant was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Nothing has been urged against this finding.
9. Regarding merits of the complaint, it has been observed that after purchase of truck on 23-12-2005, the respondent has been pointing out in writing to the appellant on18 dates upto 10-08-2006 regarding defects, in support of which various documents have been filed particulars whereof are mentioned in the order, which show that many a times the respondent had to pay the amount of replacement of spare parts. It has been observed that the appellant had not filed any evidence that these were routine defects. On the basis of all this, the District Forum has reached the conclusion that these were manufacturing defects. All these findings are as per facts on record which negate the plea of the appellant that the vehicle sold to the respondent was of the highest quality or that assurances and specifications regarding quality and the performance of the vehicle were fully complied with. The stand in the appeal that vehicle was sold to the respondent after inspection and his entire satisfaction does not come to its rescue in the circumstances.
10. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant had given warranty for 18 months and/or 1,50,000 kms which ever is earlier from the date of purchase. This complaint has been filed within warranty period with all those complaints which are not denied. In these circumstances the appellant cannot draw any help from ruling of I(2010)CPJ 235 (NC) in which case there was no complaint regarding functioning of engine of the car and the only defect pointed out was that the check light started glowing on the indicator panel even during normal running of the car and it has been sold without catalytic converter. Similarly ruling II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC) does not come to its rescue, as in that case the only complaint was that clutch of the car was not functioning properly as it developed unusual noise/jerks on running of the engine.
11. One of the grounds strongly urged is that on 16-05-2006, test drive of the vehicle was conducted for nearly 500 kms alongwith driver of the respondent who issued satisfaction note and hence major problem faced by him is fully redressed. Copy of that note of the driver is placed on record as annexure B which shows that vehicle was taken to the workshop in May 2006 with complaint of excess consumption, smoke, working of engine and clutch. After test drive, driver gave satisfaction note. However, this does not come to the rescue of the appellant as even as per its own pleadings, the vehicle was reported on 27-10-2006 with complaints of low pick up, excess smoke and low fuel average. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent had violated any terms of Warranty. The vehicle has always been taken to the workshop of the appellant, where many a times the respondent had to make payment for the repairs carried out.
The plea in the appeal that vehicle is now more than five years old is not available, as the situation as on date of filing of the complaint case is to be seen which has been filed within year of the purchase with averments that within one month of the purchase, the respondent had approached the appellant for removing the defects and visited its workshop twenty times in the first year itself.
12. The District Consumer Forum has taken into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case and has awarded compensation relying an authority of (2004)5 SCC 65, observing that the respondent is deprived of use of vehicle and could not earn his livelihood. Compensation awarded is sum of Rs. Two lakhs for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering including litigation expenses which appear to be reasonable in facts and circumstances.
13. We find no infirmity or illegality in the order. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
14. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs. One copy be sent to the concerned District Forum and the file be consigned to Record Room after needful is done.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (MS KANWAL INDER) MEMBER Av After the test drive, the vehicle have been taken to workshop on 27-05-2006, 01-06-2006, 28-06-2006, 09-07-2006, 13-07-2006, 08-08-2006, 10-08-2006, 22-08-2006, 01-09-2006, 29-09-2006 and even as per appellants own pleadings when the appellant had asked the vehicle to be brought for the purpose the respondent (purchaser) had not done so.
As regards award of compensation, the District Consumer Forum has relied upon and quoted in-situ ruling reported as (2004) 5 SCC 65 against which nothing have been stated and no authority to contrary has been produced.