State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Ram Lal Saini & Anr. on 6 March, 2023
FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 01.05.2014
Date of hearing: 24.11.2022
Date of Decision: 06.03.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 424/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.,
JEEVAN TARA BUILDING,
5, SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through: Sehgal & Associates)
...Appellant
VERSUS
1. MR. RAM LAL SAINI (DECEASED THROUGH LR'S)
a) MR. MANOJ SAINI
S/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
b) MR. AMIT SAINI
S/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI,
c) MS. VEENA SAINI,
D/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
d) MS. ANJU SAINI,
D/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
e) MS. MANJU SAINI,
D/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
f) MS. INDU SAINI,
D/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
g) MS. BINDU SAINI,
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 15
FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023
D/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
h) MS. VIDYA SAINI.
W/O LATE MR. RAM LAL SAINI
R/O HOUSE NO. 1475, WAZIR NAGAR,
KOTLA MUBARAK PUR, NEW DELHI-110013.
(Through: Bhargavan & Co.)
2. SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,
B-227, OKHLA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI-110020.
3. AUTOMOBILES STERLING,
D-230 & D-4, SECTOR-8, NOIDA,
GAUTAM BUDHNAGAR,
U.P. 201301.
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. J.P. AGAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Deepak Joshi, Counsel for the Appellant.
Mr. K.N. Bhargawan, Counsel for the Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 5.6.2005, he had purchased a Car Model Tata Indigo, LS, bearing no. DL3C- AC-4108 from OP-2 (hereinafter referred to as Dealer of OP-1). After purchasing the said vehicle, it started giving trouble and PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 malfunctioning, so, the vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP-3 for its repair on different ymanufacturing defect in the vehicle. He asked the OPs to replace the vehicle but when he did not receive a favourable response from them, he brought this complaint before this Forum for seeking directions against the OPS either to replace the vehicle or reimburse the amount paid for the said vehicle along with interest @ 24% per annum.
He also sought directions regarding payment of the compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss and finally prayed for grant of suitable cost of litigation On notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written statements. As per OP-1, the vehicle sold to the complainant was of the highest quality and the complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle after its inspection and to his satisfaction. Moreover, relationship between the OPS were on 'principal to principal' basis and therefore, OP-1 (Manufacturing company) cannot be held liable for any independent act or omission committed by other OPS. Thus, for the act of one OP, another OPs could not be held liable. The complainant did not approach the Forum with clean hands, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, the vehicle was purchased under the Hire Purchase Agreement with the HDFC Bank and, therefore, the complainant was merely a Hirer/Bailee. Hence, he did not come under the definition of the Consumer. Moreover, the complainant involved many questions of facts as well as law and, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. Whereas OP-2 stated that the complainant was alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle which was PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 manufactured by OP-1. OP-2 only being the dealer of the car would not be held liable for any such manufacturing defect. The complainant was in fact supplied with a brand new car. OP-3 (Workshop) also stated that the complaint was based on the manufacturing defect so he did not have any concern with the same, whereas, it had render its best services to the complainant. He was wrongly arrayed as party just to harass and extract money from it. Moreover, the car was not having any irreparable defect. When his car was brought to the workshop, the appointed defects were rectified. Therefore, all the OPS prayed for dismissal of the complaint."
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 21.10.2014, whereby it held as under:
"It is the admitted case of both the parties that complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP-2 for a consideration of Rs. 5,06,703/-, on 5.6.2005. Complainant drew our attention qua the first job card dated 25.6.05 and which shows that the vehicle was sent to the workshop, just after 20 days of its purchase, for having the vibration in its engine. On 30.6.05, i.e. just after 5 days, the vehicle was sent to the workshop when its AC also started tripping rapidly. Besides its reverse gear also started causing noise and windshield washers were not working. The job card dated 12.7.05 shows that the engine was still vibrating, gear was causing noise and AC was tripping. Job card dated 20.8.06 shows the door was adjusted but not properly. On 9.8.05, some adjustment for its PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 poor picking up, wheel noising etc. were done, though, without charging Complainant also anything from the complainant which shows that of Rs. 7,598/- for brought the credit memo (Ex. CW-1/9), the complainant was charged for a sum purchasing the Windshield mould, Assy. Windshield glass, ELFY and sealant kit. Job card dated 28.9.05 shows that OP had given an estimate of the parts for Rs. 5600 + Rs.1500/- for the labour charges for replacing the windshield, which was broken.
Admittedly the vehicle had gone to the workshop for about 32 times during the period from 25.6.05, which shows that during the period of about 18 months, vehicle had visited the workshop of the OP-3, 36 times the average of which comes that the vehicle was being regularly sent to the workshop twice a month. OP-1 avoided his liability on the grounds that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It had dealing with the policy with 'principal to principal basis'. Meaning thereby it had no liability to replace or to refund his money. OP-2, Dealer, has also taken the similar excuse. Whereas the Prop. Of the Workshop, OP-3 also disowned its liability and further stated that the vehicle was repaired as and when it was brought to its workshop by the complainant. On the merits of the case, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the OPs that in fact the vehicle had met with an accident for the first time on 4.5.06 and second time on 11.12.06, during the period of warranty. Complainant got the refund of all the payment made by him for its repair, from the insurance company. Moreover, the vehicle had run 1,35,807 kms upto as on 5.5.13. So, it cannot be said that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. Moreover, the obligation of the PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 OPS under warranty was to repair or replace any part found to be defective and in support of its contention, OP had placed reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. - II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC).
On the other hand, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that despite the number of visits made by the complainant for the removal of manufacturing defects of the vehicle, the vehicle could not be made trouble free, which itself make evident that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which OPS could not rectify. So, the principle of "res ipsa loquitur"
is applicable and further evidence is not required to be led by the complainant. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and the law produced by them in support of their contention, we are of the opinion that there is no dispute with the law cited by the OPS that the obligation of the OPS under warranty was only to repair or replace any part found to be defective. But the said authority was based on different facts and substances. In the said case, OP did not produce the vehicle for investigation i.e. Downing of engine was necessary to trace out the problem. But in the case in hand, the vehicle of the complainant in question had gone to the workshop not once or twice a month but almost in some months it had gone 2-
3 time also. Complainant had been continuously alleging heavy vibration in the engine of the vehicle. For its removal, the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the OP-3 not once but several times. However, the said defect was never removed. Same is the condition PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 with regard to the consumption of the oil by the engine. There was noise not in one part of the vehicle but in the reverse gear also, which also remained uncorreced. The pick up of the vehicle was also very poor. Even the door lock also stopped working. Windshield glass of the car was broken with huge bang. Vehicle used to stop in the traffic jam. Coolant was also found leaking. There Remained other number of defects unsolved as mentioned in the pleading of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that vehicle had the manufacturing defect. There is no doubt that minor repairs of the vehicle were made by the OP-3 during the warranty period and for which he had not charged anything from the complainant except the charges of the motor parts. But why the vehicle was requiring so much extensive repair almost every month? This is a question, which itself speaks a lot that the vehicle was not supplied to the complainant free from manufacturing defect and therefore, we hold the OP-1, i.e., Manufacturing Company either to replace the vehicle of the complainant immediately or to return the with the amount of invoice Rs. 5,06,703/- along compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh for causing unnecessary harassment and payment for the motor parts purchased by the complainant including litigation charges. OP-1 is directed to make the compliance of the order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, in order to avoid the use of coercion methods under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room."
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has erred in establishing that the car has manufacturing defect in the light of the judgments relied upon by the Appellant. Further it is argued that the order is an overreach in as much as it calls for replacement of the vehicle instead of the defective parts in light of the Warranty Terms binding both the parties. Lastly it is submitted that the vehicle in question had covered about 1,35,807 Kms till 05.05.2013 which clearly negates the existence of a manufacturing defect. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the District Commission.
4. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed the reply to the present appeal wherein it is stated that the vehicle in question was taken 36 times to the workshop in a period of 18 months for curing the recurrent defects which could not be cured even after multiple attempts thus, constituting manufacturing defects. Further, it is contended that the vehicle encountered problems right since 20 days of the purchase and hence, had inherent defects since inception. Lastly, it is contended that the cases cited by the Appellant do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present matter.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.
6. The main question for consideration before us is whether the District Commission erred in establishing that the vehicle in question has a manufacturing defect in light of the decisions as cited by the Appellant.
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023
7. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to "Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra" as reported in I [2010] CPJ 235 (NC), wherein, the Hon‟ble National Commission while dealing with the similar case has hold as under:
"The onus to prove that there existed a manufacturing defect was on complainant/respondent No.1. We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent No. 1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
8. Further, under catena of judgments namely "EID Parry Vs. Baby Benjamin-I [1992] CPJ 279, Tata Motors Vs. Sunil Bhasin - III [2008] CPJ 111, Chandreshwar Vs. Telco- I [2007] CPJ 2, Diamond Cement Vs. Rai Prexim India Pvt. Ltd. I [2003] CPJ 1 and Lovely Vs. Harmesh Lal - I [2007] CPJ 312." on similar issues, the Hon‟ble National Commission has held that expert opinion is a condition precedent for establishing manufacturing defect.
9. From the aforesaid holdings of the Hon'ble National Commission, it is clear that firstly the onus of proof is upon the Complainant/purchaser to prove that the purchased vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. However, in the present case, no expert opinion or evidence has been filed by the Respondent No.1/Complainant to prove that the said car broke down due to any manufacturing defect. Therefore, devoid of any evidence, we are not convinced with the claim that the said car suffered from any manufacturing defect.
10. Merely because the car had been taken to the workshop of the Appellant several times or because a number of letters/complaints had been PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 addressed to various functionaries and authorities of the Appellant/Opposite Party-manufacturing Company, it will not by itself amount manufacturing defect. The District Commission, on a scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties, has observed these recurrent defects appeared in the vehicle immediately after the purchase, which during the warranty period were repaired and necessary parts covered under the warranty were replaced.
11. The District Commission has further observed these recurrent defects viz noise in the engine, reverse gear issue, poor pickup, defect in door lock, coolant found leaking in the lubrication system and other minor problems would constitute manufacturing defect and the problems faced by the vehicle appeared to have surfaced within a few days after the vehicle was purchased. Moreover, it has further gone on to observe that in view of these defects arising time and again, the minor parts were changed by Respondent No.2 free of charge except the charges for motor parts, although the complainant was entitled to warranty for replacement in case of defects. The District Commission under these circumstances established manufacturing defect.
12. To arrive at this finding, the District Commission has not referred to any specific complaint or job cards. It has also not taken note of the fact that there was no expert opinion. Furthermore, no rebuttal as to the allegations of accidental damage has been given by the Respondent no.1
13. To resolve the issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to the dicta titled as Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Dr. Birendra Narain Prasad & Ors reported at R.P. 1652 of 2006 decided on 07.05.2010 , wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held as follows:-
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023
"The State Commission has failed to consider that the complainant had not been able to discharge its onus to prove the manufacturing defect. He neither produced any expert opinion nor could prove from the records such as the job cards that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. There is no rebuttal to the allegation of accident. Merely because the accessory was not supplied in the beginning and that the vehicle suffered from some minor defects, which, however, were attended to by the opposite party, the State Commission has completely erred in holding that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect warranting its replacement. In the case of Surendra Kumar Jain Vs. R.C. Bhargava & Ors. [III (2006) CPJ 382 (NC)], even when the complainant had filed a report of one O.P. Singh stating that the radiator was found to be leaking from the bottom tank and had been replaced, this Commission had taken the view that as many as 11 visits to the workshop notwithstanding minor defects cannot be said to be manufacturing defect. The defects in this car, as rightly held by the District Forum, were minor in nature and cannot be said to be in the nature of manufacturing defects. For the non-supply of the accessory kit, the complainant has been duly compensated by the District Forum."
14. The National Commission further observed :
In fact the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra and another [(2006) 4 SCC 644] has held that where defects in various parts of a car are established, direction for replacement of the car would not be justified. Replacement of the entire item or replacement of defective parts only called for. The State PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 Commission, therefore, has exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering replacement by a new car.
15. Furthermore, it is also appropriate to refer to Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Sharad & Anr., (NC), given on 19.05.2016 in RP No.2340 of 2009, wherein the Hon'ble National Commission in a similar case while granting relied has held as under:
22. It is important to note that the vehicle had run about 35000 km in the first year and as per the admission of the learned counsel for the respondent during arguments, had run more than 90000 km. Obviously, no case is made out for replacement of the vehicle at this stage. Had there been any serious manufacturing defect, it would not have been possible to run the vehicle for so many kilometers. The circumstances and later developments in the case itself negate the justification of the order of the District Forum to a great extent. We also observe that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent have different facts. The case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. &Ors. Vs. Anurag Kapoor (supra) relates to a motorcycle and the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Affiliated East West Press Ltd. (supra) relates to a car which had not run so much mileage as the vehicle in the present case. Accordingly, we do not find any justification for replacement of vehicle or reimbursement of the whole cost of the vehicle which has already run for more than 90000kms.
On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered lot of inconvenience and misery due to improper functioning of the vehicle right from the initial days of purchase. As no purchaser of a new vehicle would ever think that he would be going to garage to get the vehicle repaired so often even if the repairs may be minor. If this has happened, the purchaser is definitely liable to receive some compensation for inconvenience and mental agony faced by him due to supply of a vehicle having some defects. Accordingly, we deem it proper that the complainant must get compensation of Rs.80,000/- from the petitioner. In holding this view, we are relying on a recent judgment of this Commission given on 01.02.2016 in RP No.2354 of 2011, PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 Tata Motors Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Ran Singh, (NC), wherein the order of the lower fora for replacing the vehicle or paying Rs.10,43,749.37 has been set aside and the order relating to award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has been upheld.
16. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that no replacement or reimbursement of whole cost of the vehicle in question is made out in which the car in question has already run more kilometres. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is evident from the records that the car in question has covered 1,35,807 kilometres and is 8 years old.
17. Here we deem it appropriate to refer to "Santosh Devi Vs. Hyundai South Regional & Ors", reported as (2012) 3 CPJ 529 (NC), wherein, the Hon'ble National Commission while dealing with the similar matter, upheld the impugned judgment of the concerned State Commission. The relevant portion is reproduced below for the ready reference:
"The very fact that the said car within a span of three years 2 months run more than 60000 Kms. speaks that there is no inherent manufacturing defect with the said car and the problem with the said car is rather created by the complainant herself. When that is so, she is bound to pay the repair charges. If she abandoned the said car and failed to take the delivery of the same by paying repair charges, she has to thank herself. When complainant is at fault, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the Ops. Viewed from any angle, complaint appears to be devoid of merit."
18. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the question of replacing the car unit does not arise in the light of the mileage, the vehicle has covered. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the vehicle could not have run so much. Moreover, when any defect was pointed out by the PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 Respondent No.1 the same was removed by changing the relevant part under the warranty. Thus, the Appellant always fulfilled his obligation under the warranty and beyond that there is no obligation put up on him by any other law.
19. On the other hand, we are of the considered view that the Respondent No.1 has suffered lot of inconvenience and misery due to improper functioning of the vehicle right from the initial days of purchase. As no purchaser of a new vehicle would ever think that he would be going to garage to get the vehicle repaired so often even if the repairs may be minor. If this has happened, the purchaser is definitely liable to receive enough and just compensation for inconvenience and mental agony faced by him due to supply of a vehicle having so many defects. Accordingly, we deem it proper that the Respondent No.1 must get compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Appellant.
20. In view of the foregoing, we modify the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Udyog Sadan,Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016 dated 21.03.2014 to the extent that instead of replacing the said vehicle or refunding the complete amount of purchase, the Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,50,000 on account of harassment, mental agony and pain within 45 days from the issue of this judgment. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed.
21. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Judgment.
22. A copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The Judgment PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 15 FA NO./424/2014 M/S TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. MR. RAM LAL SAINI & ORS. D.O.D. 06.03.2023 be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
23. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (J.P. AGRAWAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
06.03.2023 PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 15