State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Limited vs Jeevanti Devi And Another on 14 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 43 / 2011
Commercial Motors
Bareilly Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
through its Partner Sh. Manik Chandra
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2
Versus
1. Smt. Jeevanti Devi W/o Sh. Lal Singh Nayal
R/o Adarsh Colony, Kathgodam
District Nainital
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Tata Motors Limited
26th Floor, Centre A-1
World Trade Centre, Cafi Parade
Mumbai - 400005
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Virendra Singh Dangwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 44 / 2011
Tata Motors Limited
26th Floor, Centre A-1
World Trade Centre, Cafi Parade
Mumbai - 400005
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Smt. Jeevanti Devi W/o Sh. Lal Singh Nayal
R/o Adarsh Colony, Kathgodam
District Nainital
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Commercial Motors
Bareilly Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
through its Partner Sh. Manik Chandra
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
2
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Virendra Singh Dangwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 14/09/2012
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
These two appeals arise out of the order dated 22.01.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 29 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant jointly or severally the amount of Rs. 5,69,085/- (cost of Tata Winger bearing registration No. UK04-PA-0020) together with interest @6% p.a. pendentelite and future. The District Forum has further directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 16.01.2008, the complainant - Smt. Jeevanti Devi purchased a Tata Winger (Mini Bus) 2007 model from the opposite party No. 2 - Commercial Motors, Haldwani for sum of Rs. 6,19,852/-. The said vehicle was allotted registration No. UK04-PA-0020. It is alleged that the speedometer of the vehicle went out of order, which was informed to the opposite party No. 2 and the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 on 15.07.2008. The gear box of the vehicle was opened and the same was not correctly fitted and in the meanwhile, the barring of the left axle of the vehicle went defective. The complainant has alleged that 3 the opposite party No. 2 fitted barring of the old vehicle. The vehicle was, therefore, handed over to the opposite party No. 2 on 26.07.2008, but the opposite party No. 2 could not make the vehicle in a properly running condition. On 20.12.2008, the vehicle again went out of order and was handed over to the opposite party No. 2, which remained with the opposite party No. 2 till 29.12.2008. The vehicle was again handed over to the opposite party No. 2 on 09.01.2009 and further on 14.02.2009 on becoming out of order. The complainant has alleged that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect. It was further alleged that the vehicle is still with the opposite party No. 2. After issuing notice to the opposite parties through her advocate, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that as and when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2, the defects were duly rectified and the complainant was fully satisfied with the work carried out in the vehicle. It was further pleaded that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the consumer complaint is not based on facts.
4. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the vehicle was checked in the workshop and leakage was found in the oil seal of the gear box and the lock of the door was found broken. After receipt of necessary parts, the vehicle was repaired and was handed over to the complainant on 26.07.2008 after getting it tested to her full satisfaction. On 20.12.2008, the complainant brought the vehicle with the complaint of noise in gear box and white smoking. After necessary repairs, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 4 29.12.2008 to her full satisfaction. Again, on 09.01.2009, the vehicle was brought with the complaint regarding gear box and speedometer of the vehicle and the new gear box was fitted in the vehicle and after trial of the vehicle by the son and driver of the complainant, the vehicle was handed over. On 14.02.2009, the vehicle was brought to the workshop and on checking, the battery of the vehicle was found defective and by that time, the warranty had expired and this fact was duly informed to the complainant. On replacing the battery, the starting of the vehicle was found in order. The complainant has unnecessarily left her vehicle in the workshop.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 22.01.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2 has filed First Appeal No. 43 of 2011 and the opposite party No. 1 has filed First Appeal No. 44 of 2011.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have also considered the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. The vehicle was purchased on 16.01.2008. It is true that the vehicle had repeatedly been taken to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 in connection with certain complaints, which occurred one after the other in the vehicle, but from the material available on record, it is amply clear that every time, the defect in the vehicle was duly cured / rectified by the opposite party No. 2 and necessary repair work was carried out and the vehicle was put in order and the same was handed over to the complainant or her driver in perfect running condition and the complainant or her driver, as the case may be, has voluntarily executed satisfaction note to the effect, "the vehicle has 5 jointly been test driven after the servicing, repairs. I do not have any complaints and am fully satisfied". The copies of the said satisfaction notes are on record (Paper Nos. 35 to 37 on the record of First Appeal No. 43 of 2011). Apart from this, the complainant has not been able to prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that the vehicle was suffering from such an inherent manufacturing defect, which was not curable / rectifiable inspite of being repaired again and again and the said defect was persisting and was not being fully cured / rectified. Last time, when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 on 14.02.2009, the battery of the vehicle was found defective and since the warranty period of the vehicle had expired, the said fact was informed to the complainant and the battery was replaced and the vehicle was put in order, but the complainant did not come to collect the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 has written a registered letter to the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle immediately or to contact the opposite party No. 2. In para 2 of the said letter, it has been written, "ge bl i= ds }kjk lwfpr djuk pkgrs gSa fd cSVjh dh okjUVh dh vof/k tks fd xkM+h dh fcØh fnuk¡d ls 1 lky gksrh gS] mlds fglkc ls vof/k Åij gks pqdh gS rFkk pkyd ds ek/;e ls çkFkZuk dh xbZ Fkh fd nwljh cSVjh dh O;oLFkk dj xkM+h ys tkus dk d"V djsa". Thus, it goes to show that the complainant has unnecessarily left the vehicle at the workshop of the opposite party No. 2 after the same having been put in perfect running condition without any defect / shortcoming.
8. The District Forum has obtained a report from the Senior Foreman, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Haldwani, who, in his report dated 27.09.2010 (Paper Nos. 32 to 33), has stated that the vehicle was tested only in planes and not in hill routes. He has opined that it is not possible that in future too, the vehicle could carry passengers in hill routes. He has not given any reason for his said 6 imaginary conclusion. He has only stated that it appears that there is no trained mechanic in Commercial Motors, Haldwani in respect of the vehicle in question. As stated above, the vehicle has been put in order by the opposite party No. 2, but the complainant herself did not take the delivery of the vehicle. Even otherwise, the said Senior Foreman did not drive the vehicle himself and his report is not based on sound reasoning or the outcome of any tests made by him. As a matter of fact, the report reveals that no tests / checkings were made by the said official of the Transport Corporation. The District Forum has wrongly placed reliance on the said report, which in no way can be termed as an expert opinion. In contra, the Divisional Manager (Technical), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Kathgodam, in his letter dated 24.02.2011 (Paper No. 44), has specifically stated that the vehicle was driven for a distance of 23 kilometers and there was no problem in the running of the vehicle in hill routes by carrying 5+1 passengers and the vehicle was running smoothly in hill routes. It has further been stated in the said letter that the vehicle was found perfectly in order. This letter also falsifies the case of the complainant in respect of any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.N. Anantharam Vs. Fiat India Ltd.; IV (2010) CPJ 56 (SC). In the said case, apart from complaint relating to noise from engine and gear box, there was no other major defect. It was held that the vehicle had been duly certified to be completely roadworthy and the complaints of the complainant were duly attended. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Atul Bharadwaj and another; I (2009) CPJ 270 (NC). In the said case, the vehicle was taken to service station on many occasions and complaints were duly attended and rectified. It was held that inherent 7 manufacturing defects in the vehicle are not proved and the order regarding refund of value of vehicle was without justification and was set aside. Learned counsel further placed reliance on another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Scooter India Limited Vs. Manjulaben Kiritbhai and others; III (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), wherein the complainant failed to discharge onus of proving manufacturing defect and no expert report was produced. In the instant case also, as stated above, the complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that the vehicle is suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and recording an incorrect finding, erred in allowing the consumer complaint. The order impugned being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be set aside and the appeals are, thus, fit to be allowed.
11. In view of above, both the appeals are allowed. Order impugned dated 22.01.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 29 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 44 of 2011.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K