State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors. on 19 January, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA First Appeal No. 307 of 2015 Date of Institution:31.03.2015 Date of Decision: 19.01.2016 General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. Marketing and customer Care Support Passenger Car Business Unit No.1, Forbes 5th Floor Doctri V B Gandhi Marg Fort, Mumbai-23 .....Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh.Arjun Lal, Caste Vaish, R/o Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh. Dinco Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bawal road, Rewari Haryana through proprietor. Santosh Motors, Singhana Road Narnaul. .....Respondent Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Bitta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.Gaurav Sharma proxy counsel for Mr.Robin Lohan, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.2. Mr. P.S.Bedi proxy counsel for Mr.Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3. Appeal No.313 of 2015 Date of institution:- 31.03.2015/ 01.04.2015 Date of Decision:- 19.01.2016 Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh.Arjun Lal, Caste Vaish, R/o Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh. .....Appellant Versus 1. Dinco Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bawal road, Rewari Haryana through proprietor. 2. General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. Marketing and customer Care Support Passenger Car Business Unit No.1, Forbes 5th Floor Doctri V B Gandhi Marg Fort, Mumbai-23 3. Santosh Motors, Singhana Road Narnaul. Present:- Mr.M.S.Bitta, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr.Gaurav Sharma proxy counsel for Mr.Robin Lohan, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2. Mr. P.S.Bedi proxy counsel for Mr.Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3. Appeal No.438 of 2015 Date of institution:- 01.05.2015/ 13.05.2015 Date of Decision:- 19.01.2016 Dinco Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bawal road, Rewari Haryana through proprietor. .....Appellant Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Sh.Arjun Lal, Caste Vaish, R/o Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh. 2. General Manager, Tata Motors Ltd. Marketing and customer Care Support Passenger Car Business Unit No.1, Forbes 5th Floor Doctri V B Gandhi Marg Fort, Mumbai-23 3. Santosh Motors, Singhana Road Narnaul. Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana. Present:- Mr.Gaurav Sharma proxy counsel for Mr.Robin Lohan, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr.M.S.Bita, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1. Mr.Sanjeev Roy, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.2. Mr. P.S.Bedi proxy counsel for Mr.Shashi Kant Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3. CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member ORDER R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Vide this order above mentioned three appeals bearing No.307 of 2015, 313 of 2015 and 438 of 2015 will be disposed off as they are preferred against the same order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (in short 'District Forum').
2. It was alleged by the complainant that he purchased vehicle make "TATA Venture' for Rs.4,54,150/- from opposite party (O.P.) No.1. After some days the vehicle started heating up. He complained with Santosh Motors, Narnaul and Dinko Motors, Rewari, but, they told that there was no defect. After one week radiator started leaking and after his complaint O.Ps. repaired the same on 30.01.2012. After ten days thereof gear wire was broken and he toed the vehicle to Santosh Motors, Narnaul. He was charged Rs.2900/- in lieu of new wire. Due to manufacturing defect the vehicle was giving trouble to him, physically as well as mentally. On 01.06.2012 the vehicle over-heated and engine stopped functioning. He telephoned Dinko motors and was asked to bring the vehicle to Rewari. On 02.06.2012 he took vehicle to Dinko motors and it was told that engine was ceased. It was told by O.P.No.1 that there was no warranty of the engine because the same was ceased due to his negligence. The vehicle never met with an accident and the story was concocted by O.Ps. to escape from their liability. Since 02.06.2012 the vehicle was standing at the showroom of O.P.No.1 i.e. appellant in appeal No.438 of 2015. The O.Ps. be directed to replace the old vehicle with new one or return the sale price as mentioned above.
3. All the O.Ps. filed separate replies denying his right . It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that the vehicle was repaired as per terms and conditions of warranty, but, complainant was forcing to repair beyond that. Clutch wire, gear wire etc. are normal wear and tear and not covered by warranty. Life of gear wire depends upon the way of driving and proper care etc. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the absence of expert report it cannot be presumed that there was any manufacturing defect. During checking it was found that the vehicle was hit due to which radiator was damaged. Due to this reason the engine was over-heated and ceased. Objections about maintainability of complaint, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint. It was only dealer of the manufacturer.
4. O.P.No.2 alleged that there was no manufacturing defect and complainant was trying to get benefit out of his own fault. The vehicle covered 26154 Kms in between 24.08.2011 to 30.04.2012. Had it been used for personal use it would not have covered this much distance. There was no mechanical report on the basis of which it can be presumed that there was any mechanical defect in the vehicle. If any part was defective that could have been replaced and not the entire vehicle. Some parts are to be changed in routine and warranty of such parts was not applicable as per condition No.5, which is as under:-
"This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part thereof is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure, or by any person other than our sales or service establishments, our authorized dealers, or service station in any way so as, in our judgement which shall be final and binding, to affect its reliability, nor shall it apply if, in our opinion which shall be final and binding, the vehicle is subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance or loading in excess of such carrying capacity as certified by us, or such services as prescribed in our Owner's Manual and Service Book and nor carried out by the buyer through our sales or service establishments, our authorized dealers or their sub-dealers or service centres."
In case of accident the warranty was void. Before supplying vehicle same was tested and after clearance from different departments the same was supplied. The engine ceased due to carelessness on the part of the complainant. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.
5. In addition thereto O.P.No.3 alleged when the complainant brought the vehicle to their workshop the gear wire was changed, which was broken due to rough driving by complainant and it was not responsible for any defect.
6. After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul directed O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to replace the defective engine vide impugned order dated 05.02.2015.
7. Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant, O.P.Nos.1 and 2 have filed these appeals. Complainant has requested to direct O.Ps.to pay Rs.4,54,150/- alongwith interest, whereas O.P.Nos.1 and 2 as alleged that there was no manufacturing defect and were not liable to replace engine or to pay anything.
8. Arguments heard. File perused.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per expert report Annexure C-9 submitted by Satya Pal (B.Tech) Mech. Engg.) surveyor-cum-loss assessor the pistons were not fitted properly. The relevant portion of the report is as under:-
"The pistons of the engine are not perfectly perpendicular to the crank shaft. They are somewhat misaligned to the crank shaft. Consequently when the pistons move up and down in the cylinders, due to misalignment, one side of the piston scratches against the cylinder and other opposite side of the piston moves loosely and consequently the oil rings also move loosely. This process resulted in creating friction that resulted in heating up the engine. Also more mobile oil is taken to consumption chamber by loosely moving oil rings and this more consumption of mobile oil in the chamber resulted some mobile oil remaining in urburnt/semi burnt condition. This also raised the temperature of the engine and unburnt mobile oil in the form of carbon particles came from silencer of the vehicle in the form of smoky exhaust gases. This phenomenon/defect was there in the vehicle from the very beginning. These two factors created in the engine resulted in very high temperature rise in the engine. Consequently, the piston size expended resulting in seizing of the engine ultimately. This is due to inherent manufacturing defect in the engine and cannot be rectified even by overhauling of the engine."
10. He recommended replacement of the defective jeep with new one. So it shows that there wase He manufacturing defect of the vehicle since beginning and O.Ps. are liable to replace the same as per warranty which is applicable up to two years or 75,000 km whichever is earlier. There is no evidence on the file showing that vehicle met with an accident so impugned order be modified accordingly.
11. On the other hand counsel for O.Ps. vehemently argued that Satya Pal is not an expert witness, who has given his report Annexure C-9. The vehicle should have been got inspected from competent engineer of the company. If there was defect in gear box or it was over-heating then how it covered 26,000 km. As per para No.4 of the complaint only these defects was existing so they cannot be asked to replace the engine and can only repair the same. So impugned order dated 05.02.2015 be set aside.
12. Neither the arguments of complainant's counsel nor of the O.Ps. can be accepted in toto. The complainant has miserably failed to show that there was manufacturing defect in the entire vehicle since beginning. As per report Annexure C-9 there was defect in the engine only. The person who gave report is mechanical engineer and after inspecting vehicle gave this report. In rebuttal thereof, the O.Ps. had not produced any expert report. If that report was not correct O.Ps. could have requested to appoint an other engineer or expert to examine the vehicle and give report so it can be safely presumed that there was defect in the engine of the vehicle and that is why it has ceased. O.ps. have not produced any evidence showing that the radiator was damaged or there was any type of leakage. When the vehicle was brought to the workshop of O.P.No.1 or O.P.No.3 they must have mentioned the defect in the job-card. If the radiator was damaged due to hit the same must have been mentioned therein. In the absence of any evidence to this effect the findings of learned District Forum cannot be disturbed. The learned District Forum has rightly came to the conclusion that replacement of engine will meet the end of justice. So these arguments are of no avail. Resultantly all the appeals fail and they are hereby dismissed.
13. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal bearing No.438 of 2015 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification.
14. The original judgment be attached with appeal No.307 of 2015 and certified copies be attached with appeal No.313 of 2015 and 438 of 2015.
January 19th, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri R.K.Bishnoi, Member Judicial ember Addl. Bench Addl.Bench S.K.