State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarjit Singh Mahal vs Tata Motors India Limited on 29 July, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1205 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 12.07.2010.
Date of Decision: 29.07.2013.
Amarjit Singh Mahal S/o Sh. Labh Singh, Resident of House No.47-A,
Officers Colony, near Old Courts, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Tata Motors India Limited, Registered Office, Marketing and
Customers Support, Passenger Car Business Unit, 8th Floor,
Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade,
Mumbai,400005, through its Managing Director.
2. Tata Motors India Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, 13/19,
Nagindas, Master Road, Geetanil, Hutatma Chowk, Port,
Mumbai-400001, through its Managing Director.
3. Garyson Motors Pvt. Ltd., Sherpur Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana
through its Manager.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market,
Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
01.06.2010 passed by the Additional
Bench of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana,
at Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Karamjeet Verma, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate, counsel for respondents no.1 & 2.
Sh. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.3. Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.4.
------------------------------------------
First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 2INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sh. Amarjit Singh Mahal, appellant/complainant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, at Ludhiana (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), making the narrations that he purchased one brand new Indica car on 14.06.2006 bearing Engine No.475 ID105ET2P4009, Chassis No.600142ETZP80494 from respondent no.3, who is authorized dealer of Tata Motors India Limited, respondent no.1, for a total sale consideration of Rs.3.57 lacs. The appellant spent Rs.10,000/- on CD player, Rs.5,000/- on Central Locking, Rs.2500/- on seat covers, Rs.2500/- on tubeless tyres and Rs.12,000/- for registration of the car. Registration number was PB-10-BW-0019 and the same was registered with DTO, Ludhiana. The said car was purchased after getting the finance from ICICI Bank Limited, Ludhiana.
The said car was purchased by him for his personal use.
3. The appellant purchased the said car on the assurances of the respondents that the said car is No. One car of the world and meets stringent European safety standards and has least problems, as compared to others and the car represents advance technology, environmental compatibility and it will work properly, but the claims of the respondents proved false. On 23.03.2008, the appellant along with his wife Smt. Lakhmir Kaur Mahal and his 11 years old daughter First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 3 Harleen Kaur Mahal had gone to their village Mahlan in Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali and by that date, the car had covered a distance of 5500 kmts. only. At about 5.00 P.M., when the appellant along with his family was coming back to Ludhiana and had covered a distance of about one kilometer from his village Mahlan towards Ludhiana, at that time, the appellant noticed some smoke, coming out from AC blower as the AC was running at that time. The appellant, who was driving the car, immediately stopped the car and opened the bonnet and checked the engine and there was no smoke near the engine, but when the appellant sat in the car, he found that the dash board of the car has started melting and thereafter, the car caught fire. The appellant, his wife and daughter could hardly come out of the car when the whole of the car started burning and their lives were saved with the grace of the GOD. The appellant could not take out his clothing, belongings and golden and diamond ornaments of his wife lying in the car, value of which was more than Rs.1.00 lac and the cash of about Rs.25,000/- was also burnt when the car caught fire. The call was made to the Fire Extinguishing Department and the officials of the said department reached within 45 minutes at the spot, but by that time, the car was totally burnt. The said incident took place due to the manufacturing defect in the car.
4. The appellant informed the respondents and paid Rs.5,000/- to crane owners i.e. Shunty Break Down Services for taking the damaged car to the garage of respondent no.3 at Ludhiana and the same is lying in the workshop of respondent no.3. As a matter of fact, there was a manufacturing defect in the engine of the car. The appellant has spent more than Rs.4.00 lacs on the said car. The appellant requested respondent no.3 to give reasons for the cause of First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 4 fire, but no reply was given. The appellant suffered lot of mental tension, pain, agony and suffering and the respondents are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and the appellant also suffered financial loss and the loss suffered by the appellant cannot be suffered in terms of money, but the appellant is entitled to refund of the entire amount spent by him along with sale price of the car and Rs.15.00 lacs as compensation.
5. The appellant got insured the said car with respondent no.4-United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.2.85 lacs, but the said company has paid only Rs.2,34,500/- on account of the loss of the car due to burning. The said company has also left the salvage amounting to Rs.50,000/- with the appellant.
6. Respondent no.3 fitted a stereo in the car of the company 'Kenwood' which was fitted after obtaining Rs.9500/- from the appellant vide cash memo no.338. Warranty of the said stereo was for 30 months from the date of purchase. Respondent no.2 has also fitted Central Locking System and its warranty was to expire on 14.06.2009 and the appellant paid Rs.5,000/- to respondent no.3. The car was also within the guarantee period. A legal notice dated 07.06.2008 was served, but of no use.
7. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.19.00 lacs on account of compensation, including the damage to the car and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
8. In the written version filed on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2, preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the appellant has not approached the District Forum and has concealed the material facts. The complaint is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Act, being false and frivolous with First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 5 special costs. The vehicle sold to the appellant is of the highest quality and the appellant has taken the delivery of the same after Pre-delivery Inspection and entire satisfaction and it fully complied with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided by the manufacturer regarding the quality and performance of the vehicle. No relief can be given to the appellant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondents. The relationship between the answering respondents and respondent no.3 is on 'principle to principle basis'. The prayer of the appellant is beyond the warranty terms. The answering respondents have extended the limited warranty. The appellant has not suffered any loss for which he prayed for any compensation. The vehicle was financed and hypothecated with finance company and the appellant has not impleaded the finance company and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
9. The appellant has purchased the vehicle on 14.06.2006 and the present complaint was filed on 23.07.2008 and is barred by time. No demand notice was served before filing the present complaint.
10. On merits, it was submitted that the vehicle was also hypothecated with the finance company, which has direct interest over the vehicle. It is not possible that the vehicle of the appellant had covered only 5500 kmts. between the period 14.06.2006 to 23.03.2008. No FIR/DDR was lodged about the loss of the ornaments, clothes and the cash. The appellant has concocted a false story about catching of the fire due to manufacturing defect. The answering respondents have installed a number of censors, fuses and indicators to rule out the such mis-happening. In case of over-heating, indicator of temperature will rise, fuse will cut the supply of power and the sensors will automatically halt working of the engine. Due to development of any snag in the First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 6 vehicle and manufacturing defect, the vehicle of the answering respondents may stop function, but it is not possible that the same will catch fire. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
11. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.3, similar preliminary objections were taken and it was further submitted that the appellant came to respondent for first service on 20.10.2006 with the meter reading of 1368 kmts. and thereafter, he never reported for the service of the car to respondent no.3, or to any other authorized service station. It is mandatory for every vehicle to get the service done from any service station at every 5000 kmts. or after six months period, but the appellant never came after first service.
12. The answering respondent received a telephone call from the appellant on 24/25th March, 2008 about the incident of burning of the car and the answering respondent deputed Sh. Rakesh Kumar, its representative to attend the vehicle of the appellant near village Malhan. On inspection, it was found that the vehicle was completely burnt. The vehicle was towed down to Ludhiana at the workshop of the answering respondent and all the insurance formalities were processed and Sh. Ramesh Goyal was deputed as surveyor by the insurance company to assess the loss. The answering respondent also sent a letter dated 08.04.2008 to the appellant. On 12.04.2008, the vehicle was collected by the appellant from the workshop of respondent no.3 in the same condition in which it was brought to the workshop of respondent no.3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent nor there was any manufacturing defect. The vehicle might have been burnt on account of number of reasons which include non-maintenance of the car properly and the complaint is false. First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 7
13. On merits, it was admitted that the appellant purchased the car and Rs.9,500/- were charged from the appellant for KDC MP3 player and speakers. It was also admitted that the said car was got financed from ICICI Bank Limited, Ludhiana. It was further submitted that Tata Motors India Limited is one of the biggest companies, with regard to manufacturing of cars and its features as well as other qualities have been duly explained in the booklet supplied to the customers/purchasers. The cars and other vehicles manufactured by Tata Motors India Limited are more successful motors on Indian roads as well as in other countries. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
14. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.4- United India Insurance Company, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering respondent. The answering respondent has already settled and paid the claim of Rs.3,34,500/- vide cheque no.270485/- dated 27.05.2008 drawn on Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited and the salvage of the insured car was worth Rs.50,000/- burnt in the fire due to manufacturing and inherent defect. The appellant has no cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint against the answering respondent. The appellant while receiving the claim has agreed and promised in writing to pay back the claim received by him to the answering respondent, in case the appellant succeeds in getting the claim/damages from respondents no.1 & 3. It was prayed that the complaint against respondent no.4 may be dismissed with costs.
First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 8
15. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
16. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the point for consideration is whether there was any manufacturing defect in the car in question and the onus was on the appellant to prove any manufacturing in the car. The appellant has not examined any expert to prove the manufacturing defect. He has been plying the car for almost two years from 14.06.2006 to 23.03.2008 when it was burnt, without any complaint of any manufacturing defect or any problem during the said paid. Except on 20.10.2006, he never got the car serviced from any authorized service station and the same stands duly proved from the job cards Ex.R-8 and Ex.R-9. This shows the improper maintenance of the car by the appellant. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that prior to 23.03.2008, the appellant had ever lodged any complaint with respondents no.1 to 3 about any manufacturing defect in the car. From the simple burning of the car on 23.03.2008, no inference of existence of any manufacturing defect in it can be drawn. The appellant has already received the insured amount under the policy of the car from respondent no.4. It is not proved that the goods and the cash money in the car were insured. The complaint was dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
17. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.06.2010, the appellant has come up in appeal.
18. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 9
19. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the car of the appellant suddenly caught fire and was burnt and that itself proves that there was some manufacturing defect and no expert evidence could be led, as the car was totally burnt. It was further contended that the District Forum has relied upon the authorities in its order and dismissed the complaint on the ground that no expert was examined, but the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable because the present case is not a case of ordinary defects which could be proved by leading expert evidence, but in this case, the car was totally brunt and there is no other evidence or reason for the car, catching fire, except the hidden manufacturing defect in the car, or else there was no occasion for the car to catch fire when the appellant was travelling in the same along with his wife and daughter. It was further contended that the car had run only 5500 kmts. at that time and the appellant has got the first service at 1368 kmts. and the next service was to be done after 5000 kmts. which were not covered, yet there was no incident of getting the same serviced from some unauthorized person. The respondents have not rebutted this evidence in any manner and the car was lying with respondent no.3 and respondent no.3 could easily furnish the detail of the kilometers if it has run more. The photographs Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10/B clearly prove that how the car suddenly caught fire and it was totally burnt. Fire Report is Ex.C-11 and the cause of the fire was 'unknown'. DDR Ex.C-12 was recorded at P.S. Handesa. Job Card Ex.R-8 proves that the vehicle was brought for first service when it has run 1368 kmts. and the Service Invoice is Ex.R-9. The Order Form is Ex.R-10. The District Forum has ignored the fact that the incident was reported to the Fire Department and DDR was lodged immediately. It has been further contended that even the total First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 10 insurance amount was not paid and the complaint was dismissed solely on the ground that the appellant has received the insurance amount and has failed to prove manufacturing defect, but the District Forum has lost sight of the fact that the appellant suffered lot of mental tension, harassment and saved life of his family. All this happened due to deficiency in service on the part of respondents no.1 to 3, but no compensation was awarded and they were exonerated. It has been contended that the belongings of the appellant and the jewellary as well as cash was also lost, but for that no compensation has been paid. It has been prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be accepted.
20. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the order passed by the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The said valuables and the jewellary etc. were not insured with the insurance company and the other respondents are not liable to pay any amount for the same. The appellant failed to prove the manufacturing defect and also did not get the service and maintenance of the vehicle at proper time and for the fault of the appellant, the vehicle caught fire for which the respondents cannot be blamed. The insurance company has paid the total amount of insurance, except the salvage. It was contended that the order passed by the District Forum is correct and the appeal may be dismissed.
21. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the facts and circumstances as well as the entire record along with other material placed on the file.
First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 11
22. From the above discussion, it emerges that the car of the appellant suddenly caught fire and till the time, the fire could be extinguished, it was totally burnt. In such a situation, no expert could find out the cause of the fire and the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that no expert was examined. This reasoning given by the District Forum is not having any logic behind it. The catching of the fire by the car while moving on the road itself shows that there was some inherent defect, or else there should have been no occasion for the car in question to catch fire. The appellant was travelling in the said car along with his wife and minor daughter and they were returning from their village to Ludhiana and they had hardly travelled one kilometer, when the incident took place. The appellant and his family members escaped injuries. The car in question at that time had run only 5,500 kmts. as per the averments of the appellant and the same has not been rebutted by the respondents in any manner, except taking the plea that the car was purchased on 14.06.2006 and the incident occurred on 23.03.2008 and it is not possible that it has run only 5,500 kmts. The respondents again have not placed on file any document or led any evidence, including the expert evidence to prove that the version of the appellant was false. The respondents have relied upon the documents Ex.R-8 as per which the first service was carried out at 1368 kmts. on 20.10.2006. The plea that the appellant got the service done from unauthorized persons, is not established because the next service was due after 5,000 kmts. i.e. when the car has run 6368 kmts., but of course the periodical service was required to be conducted, but since the car in question has not covered the requisite kilometers for the second service, it cannot be said that the service was got conducted from some unauthorized service station. First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 12
23. The appellant has placed on file the documents, including the photographs Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10/B which clearly show that the fire broke out and the Fire Distinguisher was called and before the fire could be extinguished, the total damage was done. Photographs Ex.C10/A and Ex.C-10/B show that the fire has completely damaged the car. As per Fire Report Ex.C-11, the category of the fire was 'major' and it took 49 minutes to extinguish the fire. DDR Ex.C-12 was recorded on the statement of the appellant. Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14 are the receipts which were issued for the payments made by the appellant to the car for reaching Ludhiana and for the photographs. News cutting Ex.C-16 also is regarding the sudden catching of the fire of the car in question. Ex.C-17 is the application given by the appellant to the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, requesting it to appoint technical expert for giving the opinion. Legal notice Ex.C-19 was served and reply Ex.C-23 was given by respondent Tata Motors India Limited, as per which the report was called about the incident. The case of the appellant is also supported by affidavit of Smt. Lakhmir Kaur Ex.CW-3/A.
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that the car in question caught fire suddenly and it was due to inherent defect in the car and no evidence to rebut the evidence led by the appellant was produced by the respondents. The fact remains that the car was burnt and the intimation was given to the respondent-Tata Motors and the respondent-Tata Motors vide reply Ex.C-23 mentioned that the report has been called, but no such report has been placed on record, to know exactly why it has happened.
25. Respondent no.4 has paid the insurance amount to the tune of Rs.3,34,500/- and the salvage of the car, as per respondent First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 13 no.4, was worth Rs.50,000/- and in case the appellant returns the salvage of the car to the respondent Insurance Company and takes all necessary steps to transfer the said car in the name of the respondent Insurance Company, then the respondent Insurance Company shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.
26. So far as respondents no.1 to 3 are concerned, the District Forum has altogether exonerated them, on the grounds that there was no complaint earlier about the manufacturing defect, but the District Forum has lost sight of the above facts and the material placed on file. The appellant has received the insurance amount and shall receive Rs.50,000/- from the respondent Insurance Company, if the salvage is returned and the car is transferred in the name of the respondent Insurance Company. The appellant and his family suffered due to the defect in the car in question which caused lot of mental tension and harassment and, as such, in our opinion, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lumpsum shall meet the interest of justice, which shall be paid by respondents no.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
27. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 01.06.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed to the extent that the appellant shall receive Rs.50,000/- from the respondent Insurance Company, in case the appellant returns the salvage of the car to the respondent Insurance Company and takes all necessary steps to transfer the said car in the name of the respondent Insurance Company. Respondents no.1 to 3 are directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) in lumpsum to the appellant jointly and severally, within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the above amount shall First Appeal No.1205 of 2010 14 earn interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
28. The respondent Insurance Company shall make the payment of Rs.50,000/- within 45 days after the salvage of the vehicle in question is returned to the respondent Insurance Company as well as the requisite formalities qua transfer of the vehicle in favour of the respondent Insurance Company are completed, failing which the above amount shall earn interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
29. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
30. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.07.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member July 29, 2013.
(Gurmeet S)