State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hind Motors (India) vs Manpreet Singh on 8 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2009
Hind Motors (India), 9 & 15, Industrial Area,
Phase I, Chandigarh through its Assistant Manager Legal.
.Appellant.
Versus
Manpreet
Singh s/o S.Jagjit Singh, resident of H.No. 3091, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh.
.Respondent.
BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL,
PRESIDENT.
MAJ.
GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
MRS.
NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
1. This is an appeal filed by the OP against order dated 5.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.240 of 2009.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.9.2007 the complainant purchased a Tata Safari Car from the OP for Rs.9,71,121/-. It was pleaded that since the date of its purchase, the car was having steering problem as while plying the steering got stuck and locked. In the first week of October, 2007, the OP was informed about the problem of steering but the Manager of the OP informed that it being a minor defect and which would be removed at the time of first service due in December, 2007. On 28.12.2007 he took the car for service to the workshop of OP and complained about the steering problem. After the service, the car was handed over to the complainant with the assurance that if the problem of steering persisted then they would replace the whole steering system. On 7.1.2008 when the complainant and his family was coming back from Raikot, the steering was locked and due to this, the car met with an accident. The complainant informed the insurance company about the accident and spent Rs.4,000/- as towing charges from Raikot to the workshop of the OP but the OP did not repair the vehicle. Aggrieved by the act and conduct of the OP, complainant towed the car to Anil Corporation, Chandigarh (authorised workshop of Tata Motors) in the month of February, 2008 and spent Rs.81,398/- on the repair and filed claim with the insurance company, which is pending. On 22.2.2008 the complainant again went to the OP and made request to replace the defective steering system but the OP removed the steering box which was within warranty. Hence the car was suffering from some manufacturing defect in the steering system which led to its accident. Hence, this complaint was filed.
3. Reply was filed by the OP in which it was stated by the OP that the car was used for commercial purposes. It was submitted that at the time of first and second free service, no complaint regarding steering problem was made by the complainant. The complainant approached the OP with the steering problem for the first time on 28.12.2007 and the OP advised him that a part of the steering needed to be replaced which would be available after 4-5 days. The complainant was strictly advised by the OP not to drive the vehicle till the affected part was replaced. It was pleaded that the complainant approached the OP on 22.2.2009 for third free service and steering problem, which was rectified by the OP on the same day without charging anything. It was further pleaded that the car met with an accident due to the fault of the complainant himself as the complainant drove the vehicle even inspite of the advice given by the OP. All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint have been denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint as there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which OP should pay compensation to the complainant for endangering his life and that of other commuters. The vehicle sold by the OP was not only defective but dangerous to drive.
The OP was directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.5,500/- & interest @ 12% p.a. on the whole amount since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.2.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.
6. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP. Sh.Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellant/OP but none has appeared on behalf of respondent/complainant. The main point for consideration before us is whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP or not.
7. The contents of paras No.1 to 4 in the appeal have already been written in the complaint and in the reply, so there is no need to reiterate it again. It is further submitted by the appellant/OP that exhibit OP-4 bears the advice to the respondent/complainant that the power steering gear box functioning not upto the mark and to be replaced. The part will be available after 4-5 days. The owner of the vehicle is advised that not to drive the vehicle till the affected part not replaced but despite the clear cut advice of the appellant, the respondent/complainant used the vehicle in question negligently and covered a distance of 600 KM without getting the work done of steering of the vehicle in question. The appellant/OP has given free service to the respondent/complainant on 22.2.2008 and not charged even a single penny from the respondent/complainant. It is unbelieveable that the vehicle having any such type of defect would be used on road for such a long period of 1 year. In the absence of any expert opinion on file, the finding of the District Forum is without any substance and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted by the appellant that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1)
(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The vehicle purchased by the respondent/complainant is being used for commercial activity as the respondent/complainant had covered 41061 KM within a mere span of 12 months. It means that the vehicle in question has purchased for commercial purpose and he is not entitled to any relief. It is submitted by the appellant/OP that the respondent/complainant has not impleaded the insurance company as a party in this case, however it has been mentioned in para No.3 of the complaint that the insurance company is OP No.2, which is not mentioned in the title of the complaint. The District Forum given its finding in para No. 9 of the impugned order that if the appellant/OP had given any such advice given to the respondent/complainant then the vehicle would not have been handed over to the respondent/complainant for driving because it was so dangerous to drive such a vehicle. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant/OP released the vehicle after the written request of the respondent/complainant to the appellant/OP. This fact is apparent from exhibit OP-4, which is signed by the agent of the respondent/complainant. It is further submitted that the appellant cannot retain the vehicle forcibly and the finding given by the District Forum is based on surmises and conjectures and without any basis. The vehicle was sold to the entire satisfaction of the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that the vehicle has any manufacturing defect. The respondent/complainant has also not produced copy of any FIR/DDR of the alleged accident and there is nothing on record to show that the accident took place because of steering problem. It is further prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum may kindly be set aside.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/OP and perused the record, we come to the conclusion that admittedly there is some defect in the steering system. As per the version of the respondent/complainant, from the very beginning the steering was giving a trouble due to being hard stiff and heavy, which was duly admitted by the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP assured the respondent/complainant that there was a minor defect and would be removed at the time of first service. The respondent/complainant brought this vehicle for second free service but the appellant/OP told the respondent/complainant that right now, they did not have the requisite part of the steering system in their stock, which has to be replaced and you come after 4-5 days, the defect will be removed. The appellant/OP advised the respondent/complainant not to drive the vehicle for 4-5 days till the part was replaced. This by itself means that there was defect in the vehicle, which is duly admitted by the appellant/OP. Since the respondent/complainant from the very beginning was complaining about the steering problem, so it was the duty of the appellant/OP to remove the defect immediately. Moreover it is also the duty of the appellant/OP to keep all the spare parts available, to provide, proper, hastle free service to the valuable customer well in time. It is true that appellant/OP had advised the respondent/complainant not to drive the vehicle for 4-5 days till the part was replaced. But the appellant/OP did not make any alternative arrangement by providing any car or taxi to the respondent/complainant till the removal of the defect. In our opinion, the appellant/OP should have made some alternative arrangement for the respondent/complainant, which he failed to do and in these circumstances the respondent/complainant was forced to drive the defective car on road because he had to go to attend marriage of his relative along with his family. Secondly the contention of the appellant/OP is that respondent/complainant is not a consumer as the car is being used for commercial activity but appellant/OP has miserably failed to prove that the vehicle in question has been used for commercial purposes by the respondent/complainant. Hence, there was a deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP for which appellant/OP should pay compensation to the respondent/complainant for endangering his life and that of other commuters also. Therefore the impugned order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned and legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently the order passed by the District Forum is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit without any order as to costs.
9. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
8th January, 2010. Sd/-
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER Sd/-
[MRS. NEENA
SANDHU]
Rb/- MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2009
Present: Sh.Gagan
Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
-.-
Vide our detailed order of even
date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
8.1.2010
(MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
Rb/-
APPEAL NO. 1716 OF 2008
Present: None for the appellant.
Sh.Rakesh
Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent -.-
Vide our detailed order of even date recorded
separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
10.12.2009 (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MRS.NEENA SANDHU) Rb/-