State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors Ltd. vs Sh. Hira Lal. & Anr. on 24 July, 2023
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1) First Appeal No. : 242/2019
Date of Presentation: 08.07.2019
Order reserved on: 30.06.2023
Date of Order : 24.07.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s Hi Tech Satluj Motors P. Ltd., NH-21, Luna Pani, Bhangrotu, District
Mandi, H.P.
........Appellant.
Versus
1. Sh. Hira Lal, S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Thakur, R/O V.P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil
Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
........ Respondent No.1/complainant.
2. Tata Motors Ltd., One IndiaBulls Centre, Tower 2A & 2B, 20th floor, 841,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Jupiter Mills Compound Elphinston Road,
Mumbai (West), Through its Manager.
.........Respondent No.2/opposite party.
...................................................................................................
For Appellant : Mr.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) First Appeal No.: 257/2019
Date of Presentation: 23.07.2019
Order Reserved on : 30.06.2023
Date of Order: 24.07.2023
...................................................................................................
Tata Motors Limited One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2A & 2B, 20th floor, 841,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Jupiter Mills Compound Elphinstone Road, (West),
Mumbai-400013
......... Appellant.
Versus
1. Sh. Hira Lal, S/o Sh. Rattan Lal Thakur, R/O V.P.O. Jalpehar, Tehsil
Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.
........ Respondent No.1/complainant.
2. M/s Hi Tech Satluj Motors P. Ltd., NH-21, Luna Pani, Bhangrotu,
District Mandi, H.P.
........... Respondent No.2/opposite party
................................................................................................
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant: Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr.Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
...........................................................................................................
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
O R D E R :-
The instant appeals are arising out of the common order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the District Forum, Mandi, H.P. in consumer complaint No.160/2017 titled Shri Hira Lal Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that vide invoice dated 29.06.2016, complainant purchased a vehicle (Tata Tiago car) from the opposite party No.2/dealer. The car was got registered bearing No.HP-29B1065. Before purchase of car, sales representatives of the opposite party No.1/manufacturer told the complainant that mileage of the vehicle is 23.84+ kilometers per liter. After taking delivery of car, complainant was shocked to know that Mileage and pick-up of the car was very poor. Rain water used to enter inside all doors 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019 of the vehicle. A complaint in this regard was lodged on customer care number of the opposite party No.1/manufacturer. An Engineer/Manager of the opposite party No.2/dealer told the complainant that there is some fuel supply problem to the engine. Poor pick-up and mileage of the vehicle continued. Legal notice dated 17.11.2016 was served upon the opposite parties. During test drive, the car covered only 12-15 kilometers of distance in a liter of petrol and failed to reach the mileage claimed by the company. To check the problem of rain water coming inside from the doors of car, the same was washed. It was noticed by the Manager etc. of the opposite party No.2/manufacturer that the water comes inside the car from the doors. They admitted that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect(s), During rainy season, water comes inside the car and gets stored. It makes the vehicle unhygienic and unsuitable for use. Inspection of car was carried out by Automobile Engineer/Experts of the opposite parties, who admitted that the same suffers from manufacturing defects. The opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in rendering the service. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, the opposite party No.1 (manufacturer) did not appear before the Forum despite service and consequently, proceeded against ex-parte. 3
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019
4. The complaint was opposed by the opposite party No.2 (Dealer) by filing a reply. The opposite party No.2/Dealer has pleaded that Tata Tiago car manufactured by the opposite party No.1 was sold to the complainant. However, it has been pleaded that the mileage of vehicle is advertised by the opposite party No.1/manufacturer. After the lodging of complaint by the complainant, an e-mail was received by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1/dealer. It is denied that that the Service Engineer found problem in the supply of fuel. Service Engineer advised the complainant to drive the vehicle as per driving terms and conditions. Grievance of the complainant was taken seriously. Chief Manager himself accompanied the Service Engineer for test drive. The complaint regarding entering of water inside the car from doors/windows was found bogus. No problem of any kind was found in the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and prays for dismissal of complaint.
5. In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the objections put forth by the opposite party No.2/Dealer.
6. The contesting parties have led evidence in support of their respective claims.
4
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019
7. The learned District Forum below allowed the complaint against the opposite parties No.1 and 2.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.02.2020, the appellant/opposite party No.1/M/s Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd and the opposite party No.2/Tata Motors Ltd. filed these two separate appeals.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
10. Learned counsel of the appellant/dealer has submitted that the complainant purchased a Tata Tiago Car on 29.06.2016 from the appellant/dealer. As per the allegations of the complainant, though the mileage of the car was projected by the manufacturer as 23.84 km/L, but the same was giving lesser mileage i.e. 12 to 15 km/L. As per the complainant, there is leakage of water in the wind screen. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant/dealer has no role to play in the said projection of mileage and leakage of water. He prays that the appeal of the appellant be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
11. Learned counsel of the appellant/manufacturer has submitted that allegations alleged by the complainant are vague in nature and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. The order passed by the learned District Commission 5 F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019 below is bad in law and prays that the impugned order be set aside.
12 On the other hand, learned counsel of the complainant/respondent has submitted that as per the order of learned District Commission, the vehicle in question was handed over to dealer and order has been complied. He further submitted that both the appeals, one filed by dealer and another by manufacturer are not maintainable as the same have been filed after compliance of the impugned order dated 01.06.2019. Learned counsel further submitted that since the impugned order has already been complied with on the part of the complainant and now the dispute is regarding receiving of sale amount from the dealer/manufacturer. He further submitted that impugned order does not require any interference and prays for dismissal of appeals and relied upon judgment 2020 (IV) CPJ 8 N.C.
13. In rebuttal, learned counsel of the appellant/dealer has submitted that if at all the complainant succeeds in his case, the same would be against the manufacturer and not against the appellant/dealer and the dealer has received the said vehicle in compliance of the order passed by the learned District Commission below. He further submitted that the mileage and warranty of the vehicle are extended by the manufacturer and not by the dealer.
6
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019 FINDING 14 The perusal of the record indicates that appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. was proceeded ex- parte before the learned District Commission below vide order dated 30.11.2017 and thereafter, the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. remained ex-parte in the entire proceedings before learned District Commission below.
15. The appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. in para 11 of its grounds of appeal has specifically pleaded that no notice of the consumer complaint was received by the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. and was not aware about the pendency of the case.
16. Relevant portion of para-11 of grounds of appeal is reproduced as under:-
"11. That the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the simple reason that no notice of the consumer complaint was received by the Appellant because the Appellant in April 24th 2017 has shifted its office from the address given in the complaint. As such, was not aware about the pendency of the case and were proceeded ex parte and did not get opportunity to put his case on merit before the District Forum....."
17. Since the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. was proceeded ex-parte before the learned District Commission below vide order dated 30.11.2017, the 7 F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019 appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. deprived of its right to defend the consumer complaint on merits before District Commission below.
18. It is settled law that no one should be condemned unheard. In the instant case, it is proved on record that proper opportunity of being heard is not afforded to the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. before learned District Commission below.
19. In view of the stated facts, we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity of being heard to the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd.
20. Consequently, impugned order dated 01.06.2019 passed by learned District Commission below is set aside and case is remanded back to learned District Commission below with the direction to decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant/opposite party No.1/Tata Motors Ltd. to file reply to the consumer complaint and thereafter, proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
21. The Learned District Commission below on receiving the copy of order is directed to issue fresh notices to the parties to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
22. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 8
F.A.No.242/2019 & F.A.No.257/2019
23. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
24. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties and their counsel free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Commission for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of this order be also placed on the connected appeal. The appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K.Verma Member Manoj 9