State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Maniraman, Tata Motors Ltd. vs Manoj Kumar Agarwal on 15 July, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 313 / 2010
1. Sh. Maniraman Tata Motors Ltd.,
Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street, Mumbai
2. Sh. Anupam Singh
Regional Manager, Tata Motors Ltd.,
Unit No. 305, IIIrd Floor, Tower B, Signature Tower
South City-I, Gurgaon
......Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2
Versus
1. Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal S/o Sh. R.C. Agarwal
R/o Mangal Parao, Haldwani (District Nainital)
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. M/s Mega Motors
5.5 Km. Stone, Rampur Road, Bareilly, District Bareilly
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 3
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 323 / 2010
M/s Mega Motors
5.5 Km. Stone, Rampur Road, Bareilly
.......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 3
Versus
1. Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal S/o Sh. R.C. Agarwal
R/o Mangal Parao, Haldwani, District Nainital
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Sh. Maniraman Tata Motors Ltd.
Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Street, Mumbai
3. Sh. Anupam Singh
Regional Manager, Tata Motors Ltd.,
Unit No. 305, IIIrd Floor, Tower-B, Signature Tower
South City-1, Gurgaon
......Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2
Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 15/07/2016
ORDER
(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):
These two appeals, one by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and another by the opposite party No. 3 filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 25 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 7,00,000/-, jointly or severally, to the complainant against the disputed car amount within one month from the date of this order and also to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount pendent lite and in future. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within stipulated time. The complainant shall handover the disputed vehicle alongwith the documents of ownership to the opposite parties within 10 days after compliance of the order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant-Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal had purchased a Safari car for a sum of Rs. 8,35,000/- from Tata Motors Ltd. through its authorised dealer M/s Mega Motors, Rampur Road, Bareilly on 30.04.2003, the chassis number and the engine number of the vehicle are 403210 BWZN 00778 and 483 DLTC 50 BWZ 703273 respectively and the warranty of the said vehicle is for three years. The said vehicle started making problems from the date of its purchase and the complainant had regularly being informing the opposite parties about the same. For the last more than two years, the power steering of the said vehicle is not working properly. The complainant informed the opposite parties about the same and requested the dealer to do the needful, but nothing has been done so far. On the request of complainant, 3 the Surveyor of the opposite parties inspected and checked the vehicle and told the complainant that the entire power steering needed to be changed. This fact was informed to the opposite parties and the dealer was again requested to do the needful time and again, but all went in vain. It is noticed that there is hole in the upper right hand side door beam of the vehicle, which is not repairable. Right from the beginning there had been different defects in the vehicle and this fact is evident from the different job cards. The complainant served a notice dated 04.01.2006 requesting the opposite parties to replace the vehicle. This notice was duly served on the opposite parties, but they paid no heed to the same. The complainant is not using the said vehicle since a long time, because of an apprehension of accident, because of the above defects and is facing great difficulty and inconvenience.
3. The opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have filed the written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that it is wrong to allege that right from the date of purchase, the said vehicle started making problems and the complainant had regularly being informing the answering opposite parties. It is specifically stated that from the perusal of the records of the answering opposite parties no alleged complaint or information, what to say of regular information, had been found, to have been made to the answering opposite parties. It is wrong to allege that for the last more than two years, the power steering of the said vehicle was not working properly or the complainant informed about the same to the answering opposite parties at the points of time, when the alleged problem in the steering was found and accordingly there was no occasion for the answering opposite parties to have taken some rectifying measures, in case required, with respect to the said vehicle. Contention of para No. 5 of the complaint as stated are not admitted. From the records of the answering opposite parties, no such deputation of any alleged surveyor by the answering opposite parties could be found nor the answering opposite parties have any inspection report of the alleged surveyor. No such change of power steering is reported to the answering opposite parties and it is specifically denied that any alleged fact was informed to the 4 answering opposite parties or any request was ever made at the relevant point of time by the complainant and accordingly without any correspondence with the answering opposite parties at that particular point of time, disentitles the complainant to raise such false contentions against the answering opposite parties. It is wrong to allege that the complainant had noticed any alleged hole in the upper right hand side door beam of the said vehicle which could not be repairable and only remedy could be the replacement of the vehicle, as has been alleged. The contentions are specifically denied in the light of the specific provisions of warranty terms and conditions. The said vehicle, which the complainant is bound and liable to produce before the Forum. It is wrong to allege that right from the beginning, there had been different defects in the vehicle. The complainant had submitted the copy of the complaint and some copies of the job cards, which belies the contention of the complainant regarding alleged different defects. From the perusal of the copies of the job cards, it reveals that they were regarding running repairs and some of the works shown there in related to change of parts against which the opposite party No. 3, the service center, had written 'parts no available', although the authorised service center is supposed to keep the parts in reserve at his service center and even otherwise in case of non-availability at any particular point of time, he could have summoned/requisitioned the particular part from the answering opposite parties spares and parts division. Service of any alleged notice on the verge of expiration of three years period of warranty appears to be with malafide intentions since the complainant had not made any timely complaint with respect to any alleged problem in the said vehicle or with respect to any problem with the dealer/authorised service center. Since the warranty clause clearly provides that the answering opposite parties obligation under the warranty shall be limited to repairing or replacing free of charge such parts of the vehicle, which are defective on the vehicle being brought to us within the period of warranty and accordingly since the parts were repairable/replaceable. There was no question of complying any alleged demand of replacement of the vehicle, which was illegal and uncalled for. It is wrong to allege that the complainant was not using the said vehicle as has 5 been alleged. It is further false to allege that there could be any alleged apprehension of accident or complainant is facing difficulty or inconvenience. The fact that the complainant had run his vehicle for about one lakh Kms. in about 30 months as per the records filed before the State Commission and especially considering the fact that as per the complainant's own affidavit dated 21.06.2006, that he was possessed of a Maruti car bearing its No. UP02- C-397 1996 and second Indica car bearing No. UP02-D-4912 and third a Zen car and fourth one being the Esteem car bearing No. UP80-AQ-6904, the plying of the said vehicle in question clearly reflects that the said car was running perfectly and this also reflects that the said vehicle had been driven by driver extensively and strenuously and the possibility of misuse and negligent driving for commercial purposes cannot be ruled out. These facts would clearly suggest the violation of the owner's manual and service book warranty procedures. In additional pleas, the answering opposite parties have stated that the complaint is not legally maintainable against the answering opposite parties for want of cause of action. The matter, if any, is related to a dispute between the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and the answering opposite parties had unnecessarily been made a party to the present proceeding and as such the complaint merits dismissal. The complainant is not a consumer nor any consumer dispute aroses under the facts and circumstances of the case. The present complaint is based on falsity of facts since the complainant had not stated the true facts before the Forum. There had never been any alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle nor was there any trouble reported to the answering opposite parties. The mere fact that the vehicle had performed to one lakh Kms. within a short span of 30 months would clearly establish that there was no alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and any minor problem as alleged, could have been rectified by the workshop, i.e. opposite party No. 3, but failure, if any, on the part of the opposite party No. 3 makes him liable, especially in the light of the fact that no alleged problem was reported either by the complainant or by the opposite party No. 3 and when the same accrued. The warranty terms and conditions clearly provide for lodging the complaint in writing to the answering opposite 6 parties or their authorised service centers and providing the vehicle at the nearby place and had the opposite party No. 3 failed to provide the complainant proper service, the other nearby authorised service centers could have been contacted with, but the complainant had utterly failed to as per warranty terms and conditions and accordingly he is not entitled to claim any relief against the answering opposite parties. The vehicle being a heavy engineering product, required timely maintenance from time to time, but the complainant had failed to adhere to the instructions given in the operator's service book, since various timely services, as required, were not performed by the complainant in his vehicle through the authorized service centers, which amounted to violation of the provisions of warranty terms and conditions and for his own latches, neglects and carelessness, the complainant cannot be allowed to make the answering opposite parties' liable in any manner whatsoever. As per the case of the complainant, as alleged, if the opposite party No. 3 was not providing the proper services or the parts were not being changed by him and the complainant was to run to the opposite party No. 3 time and again, he should have reported the matter to the answering opposite parties or their nearest office, but by not doing so the complainant cannot be allowed to make the answering opposite parties liable for his own latches. Further it would be pertinent to mention that on receipt of the complaints against the opposite party No. 3 from other car owners of the vicinity, the answering opposite parties had terminated the dealership of opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 had even acted malafidely against the answering opposite parties and litigation is going on between the answering opposite parties and opposite party No. 3 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The opposite party No. 3 out of vengeance with the answering opposite parties had even mis-utilized its local influence by clubbing hands with some of the vehicle owners of the Tata Motors and got frivolous consumer complaints filed. The relationship between the answering opposite parties and the opposite party No. 3, when it was the dealership of answering opposite parties had been on principal to principal basis and for any alleged illegal or deficient act on the part of the opposite party No. 3, the 7 answering opposite parties cannot be made liable. From the perusal of the job cards and papers as filed before the State Commission, it appears that the opposite party No. 3 being the service provider under the warranty had probably failed to act as per warranty, with respect to the said vehicle of the complainant, since it was the bounden duty of the opposite party No. 3 to have repaired and serviced the vehicle of the complainant as per warranty norms and in case of its inability, whether on the pretext of parts not available or otherwise, the opposite party No. 3 was bound to have requisitioned the desired parts already in advance or atleast, immediately on finding the need or even in the alternative on its confirmation regarding complainants entitlement of warranty service/repair, the opposite party No. 3 should have referred the matter to Tata Motors Ltd. and on its inaction, the complainant himself was bound to have contacted the answering opposite parties or its offices/Zonal Service Office for getting the vehicle inspected, serviced and repaired at its earliest when the alleged work was noticed and not done by opposite party No. 3, during the warranty period itself. That the deficiency, if any, is on the part of the opposite party No. 3 for his inaction, for the opposite party No. 3 is liable and not the answering opposite parties. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint since neither the answering opposite parties reside nor personally work for gain within the territory of the Forum and no cause of action accrued against the answering opposite parties and accordingly the complaint merits dismissal.
4. The opposite party No. 3 has filed written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that para Nos. 1 & 2 of the consumer complaint are admitted. It is wrong to allege that right from the date of purchase, the said vehicle started making problems and the complainant had regularly being informing the answering opposite party. No such change of power steering is reported to the answering opposite party and it is specifically denied that any alleged fact was informed to the answering opposite party or any request was ever made at the relevant point of time by the complainant and accordingly without any correspondence with the answering opposite party at that 8 particular point of time, disentitles the complainant to raise such false contentions against the answering opposite party. It is wrong to allege that the complainant had noticed any hole in the upper right hand side door. It is wrong to allege that right from the beginning, there had been different defects in the vehicle. No cause of action accrued to the complainant for filing the present complaint for replacement of the vehicle. It is wrong to allege that the complainant was not using the said vehicle as has been alleged. It is further false to allege that there could be any apprehension of accident or complainant is facing difficulty or inconvenience. The fact that the complainant had run his vehicle for about one lakh Kms. in about 30 months' time, as per the records filed before the State Commission also reflects that the said vehicle had been driven by driver extensively and strenuously and the possibility of misuse and negligent driving for commercial purposes cannot be ruled out. The complainant has failed to adhere the warranty terms and conditions. No alleged replacement of the vehicle can be made after such a long time and especially when the part was replaceable. In additional pleas, the answering opposite party has stated that there had never been any alleged manufacturing defects in the vehicle nor was there any trouble reported to the answering opposite party. The mere fact that the vehicle had performed to one lakh Kms. within a short span of 30 months would clearly establish that there was no alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle being a heavy engineering product, required timely maintenance from time to time, but the complainant had failed to adhere to the instructions given in the operator's service book. The complainant has filed the complaint to grab the money from the answering opposite party. That no expert evidence had been filed by the complainant in proof of his alleged contentions regarding manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and accordingly the present complaint merits dismissal. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, as whenever the said vehicle was brought to the answering opposite party for servicing, repairs etc. the same was always done up to the satisfaction of the complainant, as per the warranty terms and conditions.
95. The District Forum on an appreciation of the material on record has allowed the consumer complaint vide order dated 13.09.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2- appellants have filed First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 and opposite party No. 3- appellant has filed First Appeal No. 323 of 2010, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
6. We have heard Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants in First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 & respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in First Appeal No. 323 of 2010; Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-complainant in both the appeals; and Sh. J.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 323 of 2013 & respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 313 of 2010. We have also perused the entire record of the District Forum as well as material placed on record.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle in question, Safari Car, was purchased by the complainant-respondent No. 1 from Tata Motors Ltd. through its authorised dealer M/s Mega Motors, Rampur Road, Bareilly on 30.04.2003, which was under warranty for a period of three years. There is also no dispute that this vehicle was brought for service on several occasion at service center of M/s Mega Motors. The dispute is with regard to the fact that whether there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle right from the date of purchase and whether the appellants-Sh. Maniraman Tata Motors Ltd. & another and respondent No. 2-M/s Mega Motors were regularly informed about the defects in the vehicle or not? It is also disputed that whether there was permanent manufacturing defect in the power steering of the vehicle or not?
8. Learned counsel for the appellants in First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 has submitted that the impugned judgment had been obtained by the respondent No. 1-complainant by playing fraud upon the District Forum. The impugned judgment is erroneous, factually wrong, illegally perverse, arbitrary and is 10 without jurisdiction. The entire finding of the District Forum is vague and against the pleading. The District Forum has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it and passed the impugned judgment with material irregularity and illegality. While passing the impugned judgment, the District Forum had failed to consider the fact that the complainant has not acted as per the warranty policy and procedure of the appellants, since the appellants have never been informed about any alleged repair/works in his vehicle and even from the records, as filed by the respondents, no case is made out against the appellants. From the perusal of the papers submitted by the respondents, it is clear that respondent No. 1 had been provided timely services and nothing is revealed that the vehicle was not plying on the road. As per own admission of the respondents, the vehicle had been running and had run more than one lakh Kms. within two years would reveal that vehicle was not having any manufacturing defect. As per the complaint of the respondent No. 1, his case was entirely for repair and replacement of particular parts, which he had alleged to be defective and had he obtained proper services, the alleged part could have been replaced as per the provisions of the warranty and instead of directing for replacement of parts, refund of cost of vehicle is totally erroneous and is against the warranty policy and procedure. The present case is not a case of manufacturing defect, since as per the own case of the respondent No. 1, he has alleged that the parts have not been replaced by the respondent No. 2. Under such circumstances, the respondent No. 1 was free to have contacted the appellants, who could have changed the parts, as per the requirements under warranty, but by not contacting the appellants, the respondent No. 1 had been guilty of his own latches and negligence. The District Forum has erred in not considering the fact that the said vehicle needed expert evidence, but without any expert evidence, the finding that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle, is wholly erroneous and is liable to be set aside. No engineers from the appellants had ever inspected the vehicle of the complainant, therefore, finding of the District Forum is wholly erroneous. The District Forum has erred in not considering the fact that the relationship between the appellants and respondent No. 2 is on principal to 11 principal basis and for any alleged deficient act on the part of the respondent No. 2, the appellants cannot be made liable. The finding of the District Forum that there was a defect in the vehicle merely after twenty days of the sale, is erroneous. From the perusal of the job cards, it transpires that several jobs have been carried out in routine manner. From the perusal of the complaint as well as the job cards, it is clear that there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and any alleged defect was curable through repairs and replacement of parts, as per the requirements of the vehicle. Finding of the District Forum that the vehicle is not being plied, is not supported by any cogent evidence. The finding of the District Forum that the vehicle definitely had run 50,000 Kms. (half distance of total run) for workshop and test drives, is wholly erroneous. The District Forum had failed to consider the fact that the complainant had not filed any cogent documentary proof or evidence in support of his complaint.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-M/s Mega Motors in First Appeal No. 323 of 2010 has submitted that the District Forum has ignored the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no document regarding the fact that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The District Forum has ignored the fact that the vehicle had already run for about one lakh Kms. It was not possible to drive this vehicle in case there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the job cards available on the record. From the perusal of the job cards, it is evident that the vehicle was being driven regularly. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that regular service of the vehicle is necessary and repair and service of the vehicle is common in two years of purchase. It is not a case of manufacturing defect. The District Forum is not an expert to hold that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no expert report regarding any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
10. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd.
12vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the reported case, it was held that the vehicle having been repeatedly brought to service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. Even if it is assumed that the vehicle was carrying the defects mentioned by the complainant in the consumer complaint, then also unless it is established by cogent and reliable evidence that the vehicle was having manufacturing defect, the complainant is not entitled to a new vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle only on the basis of finding recorded by the District Forum in its order that the defects pointed out by the complainant have been removed and, thus, the vehicle was free from any defect/shortcoming. Hence, in this situation, the question of giving new vehicle to the complainant or refunding its price does not arise.
11. Now, we have to see whether there was any manufacturing defect in the aforesaid vehicle. The respondent No. 1-complainant has not filed any expert report regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle, rather in his consumer complaint, the respondent No. 1 has only stated that for the last more than two years, the power steering of the said vehicle was not working properly and the complainant informed the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 about the same and requested the dealer to do the needful, but nothing has been done so far. In the consumer complaint, the respondent No. 1-complainant has also stated that a surveyor was appointed by the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2, who inspected and checked the vehicle and told the respondent No. 1 that the entire power steering needed to be changed. This fact was informed to the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 and the dealer was again requested to do the needful time and again, but all went in vain. In the consumer complaint, the respondent No. 1-complainant has also stated that 13 one hole in the upper right hand side door beam of the vehicle was also noticed, which is not repairable. So far any inspection by the surveyor is concerned, the appellants have categorically denied this fact that no surveyor was ever deputed and no inspection report was submitted by any surveyor. In the written statement, the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have also stated that no such change of power steering was reported to the appellants and it was also specifically denied that any alleged fact was informed to the appellants or any request was ever made at the relevant point of time by respondent No. 1-complainant. It is also stated in the written statement that it is wrong to allege that the respondent No. 1 had noticed any alleged hole in the upper right hand side door beam of the vehicle, which is not repairable and only remedy could be the replacement of the vehicle. Similarly, respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 3 M/s Mega Motors in its written statement, has also denied the allegations made by the respondent No. 1- complainant and has stated similarly as appellants have stated that no change for power steering was reported by respondent No. 1-complainant and it is specifically denied that any alleged fact was informed to the respondent No. 2 or any request was ever made at the relevant point of time by respondent No. 1-complainant. There is no evidence on record that the respondent No. 1- complainant had ever informed the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 about any alleged repair/work in his vehicle. Though the vehicle of respondent No. 1 had been provided timely services by the dealer.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 has cited the following judgments in support of appellants:-
a. Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Laxman Singh Gabrial & Anr.;
I (2011) CPJ 194
b. Escorts Limited vs. K.V. Jyarajan & Anr.; I (2014)
CPJ 595 (NC)
c. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Arjun Singh & Anr.; III (2009)
CPJ 22 (NC)
d. V. Rajendran Nair vs. Tata Engineering and
Locomotive Ltd. (Telco) & Ors.; IV (2013) CPJ 173
(NC)
e. Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra &
Anr.; I (2006) CPJ 3 (SC)
14
f. Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.; I
(2010) CPJ 235 (NC)
g. Seema Gandhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
(Formerly MUM) & Ors.; III (2011) CPJ 42 (NC)
h. Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria vs. Bajaj Auto Limited
& Ors.; II (2005) CPJ 102 (NC)
i. This Commission has passed a judgment in First Appeal
No. 43 of 2011; Commercial Motors vs. Smt. Jeevanti
Devi and Anr. & First Appeal No. 44 of 2011; Tata
Motors Ltd. vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and Anr.; dated
14.09.2012.
13. In the case of Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Laxman Singh Gabrial & Anr. (supra), this Commission has held that respondent No. 2 (dealer) is solely responsible to get the engine reconditioned at its own cost. Relationship between the appellant and respondent No. 2 (dealer) is on principal to principal basis.
14. In the case of Escorts Limited vs. K.V. Jyarajan & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that vehicle was manufactured by petitioner and sold by Dealer - Tractor was sent to Dealer for repairs and was thereafter lying with it - Joint and several liability cannot be fixed on manufacturer.
15. In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Arjun Singh & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that relationship between manufacturer and dealer, on principal to principal basis - Manufacturer not liable for acts of dealer. Dealer alone held liable to pay interest and compensation.
16. In the case of V. Rajendran Nair vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Ltd. (Telco) & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the allegedly repair not done - deficiency in service - Complaint with prayer for refund of purchase price together with compensation of Rs. 2 lakh has failed to substantiate case of complainant. Order of dismissal by State Commission was upheld.
1517. In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of request for replacement of car having manufacturing defects - obligation of respondents under warranty only to repair or replace any part found to be defective - High Court not justified in directing replacement of vehicle.
18. In the case of Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that if vehicle repeatedly brought to service station for repairs, no ground to hold that vehicle suffering from manufacturing defects. We have already discussed this citation earlier.
19. In the case of Seema Gandhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Formerly MUM) & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that no evidence that vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect - No technical expert report produced - order of Fora below upheld.
20. In the case of Dr. Hema Vasantial Dakoria vs. Bajaj Auto Limited & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that in case of manufacturing defects, replacement of vehicle directed - order modified in appeal - replacement of chassis directed - if a part could be replaced or defect could be removed, replacement could not be ordered.
21. In First Appeal No. 43 of 2011; Commercial Motors vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and Anr. & First Appeal No. 44 of 2011; Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Smt. Jeevanti Devi and Anr. (supra), this Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum by discussing certain rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court and National Commission. That only noise from engine and gear box and no major defect in engine or vehicle was taken to service station on many occasions and complaints were duly attended and rectified, inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle are not proved and the order regarding refund of value of vehicle was without justification and was set aside.
22. We are convinced with the oral submissions advanced by the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 on the basis of citations relied before 16 this Commission. There is no defect in the engine of the said vehicle, therefore, it is not a case of manufacturing defect. The respondent No. 1- complainant has only stated in the consumer complaint that for the last more than two years, the power steering of the said vehicle is not working properly. Therefore, it is a case of replacement of the part of the vehicle. The respondent No. 1 has not produced any expert evidence regarding any manufacturing defect of the vehicle. We have gone through the job cards as well as satisfaction notes filed on the record by the parties. We have also gone through the document regarding extended warranty given by respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 3 for 18 months (paper No. 11/46). From the perusal of the job cards, it is evident that since the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle, there was a problem in the power steering of the vehicle. In the last job card dated 09.07.2006 (paper No. 11/39), there is also problem in steering, therefore, we are of the view that the vehicle in question was having a defect in its power steering just after purchase of this vehicle, which existed till last service. There is no evidence on record to show that respondent No. 2-opposite party No. 3 ever demanded, summoned or requisitioned this part, i.e. power steering system from the appellants. The respondent No. 1- complainant had also not sent any letter regarding defect in the power steering and had not informed the appellants. The respondent No. 1-complainant has also not complained about the working of the dealer, i.e. respondent No. 2- opposite party No. 3 to the appellants. The appellants have categorically stated in their written statement and learned counsel for the appellants has categorically argued before us that the appellants have never informed about any alleged repair/works in his vehicle. The case of the complainant was entirely for repair and replacement of particular part, which was alleged to be defective. The alleged part could have been replaced as per the provisions of warranty and instead of directing for replacement of parts, refund of cost of vehicle is totally erroneous and is against the warranty policy and procedure. The respondent No. 1-complainant never contacted the appellants, who could have changed the parts, as per requirements under warranty, but by not contacting the appellants, the respondent No. 1 had been guilty of his own 17 latches and negligence. Thus, in view of the circumstances and citations relied by the appellants, we are of the view that this is not a case of manufacturing defect, rather only power steering system of the vehicle in question was defective since purchase of the vehicle. This vehicle had already run about one lakh Kms. in thirty months.
23. It is significant to mention here that the relationship between the appellants and respondent No. 2 (dealer) is on principal to principal basis, therefore, in any case of deficiency of service on the part of the dealer, the appellants cannot be made liable. We are also convinced with the arguments advanced as well as citations relied by the appellants that if this vehicle repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs, is no ground to hold that vehicle had been suffering from manufacturing defects. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained. Therefore, the First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 is fit to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed against the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is liable to be set aside.
24. So far, First Appeal No. 323 of 2010 is concerned, we are of the view that since the vehicle in question was having defect in its power steering system and for that purpose vehicle was brought to the service station of the appellant-opposite party No. 3 for about 22 times, even then the defect in power steering was never removed permanently. The appellant-opposite party No. 3 has also neither summoned/requisitioned power steering system from the manufacturer Tata Motors Ltd., nor respondent No. 1-complainant had complained to the manufacturer regarding defect of power steering system in the vehicle, nor intimated about the deficient act and negligence of the appellant-opposite party No. 3 to the manufacturer. As we have already discussed earlier, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, rather only power steering system of the vehicle is defective, which was never rectified by the appellant-opposite party No. 3 by replacement of the part. In view of 18 the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the citations relied, we are of the view that the dealer-opposite party No. 3 was responsible about its deficient act and negligence by not rectifying the defect of power steering system in the vehicle or had been negligent by not requisition of the part from the manufacturer. In these circumstances, First Appeal No. 323 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed.
25. In view of the above, the First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital against the appellants-opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is set aside. So far, the First Appeal No. 323 of 2010 is concerned, this appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital is modified to the extent that the appellant-opposite party No. 3 shall replace the power steering system of the vehicle in question without charging any amount within one month from the date of order and the appellant- opposite party No. 3 shall pay Rs. 10,000/- against mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent No. 1-complainant. So far the payment of Rs. 7.00 lakh, jointly as well as severally, by the appellants-opposite parties is set aside.
26. For the reasons aforesaid, First Appeal No. 313 of 2010; Sh. Maniraman Tata Motors Ltd. and another vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal and another is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital against the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 is set aside, whereas the First Appeal No. 323 of 2010; M/s Mega Motors vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar Agarwal and others is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital is modified to the extent that the appellant-opposite party No. 3 shall replace the power steering system of the vehicle in question without charging any amount within one month from the date of order and the appellant-opposite party No. 3 shall pay Rs. 10,000/- against mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent No. 1-complainant. So far as the direction to pay Rs. 7.00 lakh, jointly as well as severally to the complainant-respondent 19 No. 1, by the appellants-opposite parties is set aside. Costs of the appeals made easy. The amount deposited by the appellants as statutory amount at the time of filing the First Appeal No. 313 of 2010 be released in appellants' favour.
27. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 323 of 2010.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)