State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajesh Tyagi vs Tata Motors Ltd on 19 November, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 19-11-2007 Appeal No. A-711/2004 (Arising from order dated 10-08-2004 passed by District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint Case No.965/2003) Rajesh Tyagi, Appellant R/o 41, Chitrakoot, Through East of Arjun Nagar, Dr. Aparna Bharadwaj, CBD, Delhi-32. Advocate. Versus 1. Tata Motors Ltd., Respondent No.1 V, Jivan Tara Building Through Sansad Marg, Mr. T.K. Sinha, New Delhi-110001. Advocate. Also at Passenger Car division, 26th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai. 2. Him Motors, Respondent No.1 Showroom II, Through E-366, Nirman Vihar, Mr. Shobhit, Vikas Marg, Delhi. Advocate. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complaint of the appellant, who is an advocate by profession, seeking replacement of the car by a new car, as the car purchased by him of the make of Tata Indigo (GLX) of petrol version suffers from defect in as much as presence of water inside the car on the floor area under the front passenger seat was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10-08-2004 passed by the District Forum on the premise that refund of purchase amount or replacement of vehicle can only be ordered in case of manufacturing defect which the appellant has failed to prove.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Admittedly Tata Indigo (GLX) card was purchased on 12-03-2993 from respondent No.1 against price of Rs.5,24,571/-. Immediately thereafter the defect of the presence of water inside the car on the floor area under the front seat was noticed. Appellant paid several visits in April, May 2003 as he again noticed presence of water in his car in June 2003. He went to the workshop of respondent No.2 for complete check up. Job card was issued and after sometime car was delivered back to the appellant. Again on the next day appellant noticed water at the same place. He again visited the work of respondent No.2 and complained about the recurrence of the water inside the car. Later on respondent confirmed to the appellant that there is manufacturing defect in the car but the respondent refused to accept it and refused to replace the car. Appellant sent a claim letter/notice dated 18-07-2003 which was replied by the respondent No.1 on 01-09-2003 rejecting the claim outrightly. Consequently he filed the instant complaint seeking replacement or refund of the cost of car with interest.
4. Respondent No.2 filed reply pleading therein that tree leaves had blocked outlet of Air Conditioner and the same was cleaned and the car was handed over to the appellant in perfectly running condition. Respondent No.1 also filed its own reply pleading therein that there was no defect or deficiency in service on its part.
5. In our view, it is misconceived notion that any vehicle for that purpose any goods can be ordered to be replaced or the cost can be ordered to be refunded only if they suffer from manufacturing defect. There is no such concept of goods suffering from manufacturing defect enshrined by the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Protection Act only defines the word defect by way of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act which is to the following effect:-
Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
6. In such cases we have taken a sustained view that whenever a consumer goes for a brand new goods like the vehicle his minimum expectation is that he would not encounter or face any inconvenience or hardship for few months or a year and if he had to take the vehicle time and again to the workshop for removing one defect or the other, he suffers immensely in terms of loss of time, loss of business, physical discomfort and emotional sufferings having not reaped the fruits of paying heavy amount for purchasing a new vehicle.
7. We have also taken a view that onus shifts to the manufacturer to show that the vehicle does not suffer from manufacturing defect once complainant has proved and discharged the initial onus that the vehicle was defective vehicle on the basis of large number of job cards showing that vehicle was taken on many occasion for removing one defect or the other.
Complainant has already suffered immensely and is a wronged person by having been sold a defective goods and to expect him to again incur expenses by obtaining expert opinion to show the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect will be too much. Large number of visits to the workshop from the day of purchase of vehicle for removing some or other defects is sufficient to draw the inference that the vehicle is a defective vehicle. The circumstance of the vehicle having been taken for removal of defects within or after the period of warranty leaves no manner of doubt that the goods sold to the consumer is not only defective but also suffers from manufacturing defect. If the defect continues for months together and years together and erupts time and again no other inference can be drawn than that the vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect as defects which are not of manufacturing nature can be rectified or removed without their recurrence or without giving any further inconvenience to the consumer.
8. We have also taken a view that concept of warranty is limited to the extent of putting the liability of the consumer to pay for the charges for the repairs conducted after warranty period but it does not absolve the manufacturer and the service provider from the liability of having sold defective vehicle. It was to inculcate high standard of quality of goods and service that the Legislature brought the Consumer Protection Act on the Statute Book by defining the word defect in a very elaborate and foolproof manner. Bare perusal of the definition of word defect shows that any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
9. Thus in our view whenever a manufacturer of the vehicle offers to sell the brand new vehicle to the consumer there is an implied contract as to the claim of the manufacturer that the vehicle being sold by it does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency and standard which is required to be maintained.
10. The audacity and impunity on the part of the respondent to rub salt on the wounds of the complainant that he should prove that he had been visiting time and again is demonstrated from their reply sent by both respondent as well as reply of notice and other notice sent by the complainant to the respondent No.1. For such type of manufacturers and service providers the Supreme court has in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65 come down heavily and called upon the Consumer Forum and Commissions established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to not only compensate the consumer as to the actual loss suffered by him but also to compensate him as to the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, loss of business, loss of time by taking vehicle time and again to the workshop.
11. In modern day busy life and the poor traffic conditions of the city one suffers immensely if he after having purchased a brand new vehicle takes it to the service centre every second day for removing one defect or the other.
12. Since the vehicle was purchased in the year 2003 and is being used by the complainant may be reluctantly and the defect of the kind that could not be rectified was a manufacturing defect, we allow the complaint by directing the appellant to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,24,471/- on return of the vehicle and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
13. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
14. Order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the Presidents of all the District Fora.
17. Announced on the 19th November, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj