State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Krishan Lal vs Tata Motors Marketing And Customes ... on 17 November, 2025
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT NEW
DELHI
RESERVED ON: 14/10/2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 17/11/2025
REVISION PETITION NO. 3103/2015
(Against the Order dated 13th August 2015 in Appeal 858/2014 of the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana)
Krishan Lal S/o Sh. Bal Chand @ Bal Mukund Sharma, R/o House No. 321-A, Block
-F,. Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana.
Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Tata Motors Marketing and Customer Support, Present Address - Registered
Office At Bombay House 24, Homi Mody Street Fort, Mumbai-400001,
Maharashtra.
2. M/s Metro Motors, Authorized Dealer Of Tata Motors, Present Address - Near LIC
Office, Old Court Road Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For The Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate
For The Respondent: Mr. Ritu Raj, Advocate For R-1
Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate For R-2
ORDER
PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/OP against the common order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 828 & 858 of 2014 filed on 22.09.2014 and 29.09.2014 (respectively), arising out of the order dated 22.08.2014 passed by the District. Forum, Yamuna Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 179 of 2010, which was originally filed on 03.03.2010. The Petitioner/complainant is aggrieved by the impugned order whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of District Forum.
2. The complainant, Sh. Krishan Lal, purchased a new Tata Marina LX Dicor E-lll motor car from M/s Metro Motors (the authorised dealer of Tata Motors) on 16.05.2007 for a consideration of Rs.5,89,948/- for personal and family use. Almost immediately after purchase, the vehicle began manifesting recurrent defects and had to be repeatedly presented at the dealer's service centres for repair and replacement of Page 1 of 13 major components. During the warranty period, the fuel pump was replaced three times, the head of the engine, alternator and timing belt were replaced once each and the air-conditioning unit was replaced five to six times. In addition, the shock absorbers failed to give proper service, the roof of the car vibrated and produced abnormal noise when the vehicle was in motion, and despite these repeated services and part replacements, the same complaints persisted and the vehicle never achieved the promised performance and reliability. Many job cards and service bills were admittedly in the name of the complainant's brother (Sh. Jeevan Ram) because he regularly presented the vehicle for servicing, and while an earlier complaint by the brother was withdrawn on 19.02.2010 with liberty to file afresh, the complainant filed a fresh consumer complaint on 03.03.2010 and placed on record an inspection report of the Local Commissioner (Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, I.T.I., Yamuna Nagar) dated 29.12.2009 which had concluded that the main cause of the recurring faults was a manufacturing defect manifesting between September 2007 and October 2009. On 06.10.2009 the car suffered a major breakdown (by then having run approximately 75,202 kms) and was towed to M/s Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt., where it remained in their custody and was not made roadworthy despite the complainant's repeated requests, thereafter the dealer/manufacturer declined to carry out remedial work free of cost alleging expiry of warranty and asked the complainant to authorise paid repairs, thereby forcing the complainant to approach the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency of service, unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed that i) Direct the respondents to replace the defective car with a new one, ii) Award compensation of ?2,00,000 for mental agony, harassment, and economic loss, iii) Award ?5,500 towards litigation costs. 2.1 The Opposite Parties submitted that the complaint is wholly misconceived, untenable, and liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. It is admitted that the complainant purchased a Tata Marina LX Dicor E-lll vehicle on 16.05.2007 from Opposite Party No. 2, Metro Motors, an authorized dealer of Tata Motors Limited. However, the complainant has deliberately exaggerated normal wear and tear issues arising out of regular use of the vehicle as alleged "manufacturing defects" without any credible technical evidence. The vehicle was duly inspected, serviced, and repaired from time to time strictly in accordance with Tata Motors' service standards and within the terms of the warranty. All the replacements or repairs carried out during the warranty period were done free of cost as a goodwill gesture, even though many of the defects complained of were caused by Page 2 of 13 the complainant's negligent handling, overuse, and failure to adhere to the prescribed maintenance schedule. The vehicle had run over 75,000 kilometers at the time of the last service, which itself clearly shows that it had rendered satisfactory performance over a substantial period and distance, thereby disproving the allegation of any inherent manufacturing defect. The warranty terms explicitly limit the manufacturer's and dealer's liability to repair or replace defective parts and exclude liability for any consequential loss, refund, or replacement of the vehicle. The inspection report relied upon by the complainant is not issued by any authorized or competent expert recognized under the Motor Vehicles Act, and hence, cannot be relied upon to prove a manufacturing defect. It is also pertinent to note that an earlier complaint on similar grounds was filed by the complainant's brother, who was not even the registered owner of the vehicle, and was subsequently withdrawn without any finding on merit, which itself indicates that the complainant is indulging in abuse of process by re-litigating the same issues. The Opposite Parties have at all times acted in good faith, provided timely service, and extended all possible assistance to the complainant during and even after the warranty period. Therefore, the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious, and filed with an ulterior motive to unjustly enrich the complainant by seeking refund or compensation beyond the contractual obligations. The Opposite Parties deny all allegations of deficiency in service and pray that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. After hearing both the parties and carefully perusing the material placed on record, the District Forum, vide order dated 22.08.2014, observed that the complainant had successfully established that the vehicle suffered from repeated mechanical problems since the date of purchase, despite having undergone several repairs and replacement of major components during the warranty period. The Forum noted that even after the replacement of crucial parts such as the fuel pump, engine head, alternator, and air-conditioning unit on multiple occasions, the defects continued to persist, thereby indicating that the vehicle was not free from inherent defects at the time of sale. It further held that the Opposite Parties failed to produce any credible technical report or expert opinion to disprove the complainant's allegation of manufacturing defect or to show that the recurring problems arose due to improper maintenance or mishandling by the complainant. The Forum placed reliance on the inspection report submitted by the Local Commissioner, which confirmed the existence of mechanical defects attributable to manufacturing faults, and found that the Page 3 of 13 prolonged retention of the vehicle in the dealer's workshop without restoring it to working condition amounted to clear deficiency in service. Accordingly, the District Forum directed the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant along with compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses, which order is extracted hereunder:
tl
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file. After hearing the counsel for complainant and going through the case file, It transpires from the document Annexure C-2 which is copy of Registration Certificate of the car in question issued by Registering Authority (M.V) Jagadhri (Yamuna Nagar) wherein the first owner of the car has been named as Krishan Lal son of Sh.
Bal Chand Sharma resident of H. No. 321-a, Block-F, Professor Colony, Yamuna Nagar i.e. complainant whereas as per document Annexure C-26, which is purchased invoice of the car in question, the aforesaid Krishan lai complainant is the purchaser of the car in question from the Ops i.e. Metro Motors Ambala Cantt by making a payment of Rs.5,89,948/- only on 16.05.2007. So, the stand taken by the Ops that complainant is the second purchaser of the car in question from its earlier owner Mr. Jeewan Ram alleging him to be the registered owner of the car is not tenable and thus the plea taken by the Ops that the complainant being second purchaser is not entitled to the warranty of car is also not applicable in view of the facts stated aforesaid. Further on the document Annexure C-26 i.e. Purchase Invoice of the car in question, there is a specifically mentioning on the corner of invoice that Metro Motors Ambala Cantt is having its Head Office at Railway Road, Ambala Cantt whereas Branch office at Yamuna Nagar, Near Kanahiya Sahib Chowk as well as at Karnal on G.T.Road, bypass and at Kaithal on Ambala Road and at Kurukshetra on K.D.B. Road, NearAnaJ Mandi wherefrom it transpires that the aforesaid Metro Motors Ambala Cantt is running its business at the aforesaid places and thus, it does not appears good from their mouth that District Consumer Forum. Ambala has only jurisdiction to try the consumer dispute in question whereas as per provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act, both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums i.e. Ambala as well as Yamuna Nagar have territorial jurisdiction to hear the aforesaid consumer dispute and the case law cited as Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company mentioned by Ops in their replies/written statement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Furthermore, the complainant has placed on record various job cards and cash memos issued by Ops from their Jagadhri/Yamuna Nagar Branch as well as from Ambala Cantt office vide, Annexures C-4 to C-25 wherefrom it is proved that the Ops have provided services to the complainant and his brother Jeewan Ram qua the car in question at their branches at Ambala & Jagadhri. So, now they cannot escape themselves from the liability on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as well as not providing services under the warranty clause. Besides it, vide document Annexure C-25, which is Tax Invoice issued by Ops from their Jagadhri Branch on 14.9.2009, it is clearly proved that Ops have repaired the car in question and replaced some parts under warranty and received only a sum of Rs. 229/- qua change of only power steering oil whereas they have not charged any amount qua replacement of parts having cost of about Rs. 8000/-. So, in these circumstances, the Ops cannot evade their liability from providing better services to the complainant under the warranty clause on such false and frivolous grounds such as no territorial jurisdiction, not entitlement of warranty being second purchaser etc.
6. Now, the main question to be decided by this Forum is that "whether the car in question is having any manufacturing defect from the very beginning as alleged by the complainant in his complaint?" To prove it, the complainant has placed on record a certified copy of Inspection Report as Annexure C-1 which has been submitted by one Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Automobile Instructor, I.T.I., Yamuna Nagar on 29.12.2009 in complaint case No. 185 of 2009 titled as Jeewan Ram Vs. M/s Metro Motors. The aforesaid technical person made the inspection of car in question at the direction of this Forum as he was appointed as Local Commissioner by this Forum in the aforesaid case. In the aforesaid report, the Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned that he inspected the car in question at the workshop of Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt on 22.12.2009 in the presence of Works Manager as well as other employees of the OP and in the said report he has concluded that the main Page 4 of 13 cause regarding occurring of constantly faults in the car in question is the manufacturing regarding defect since the car in question remained break down various times during the period September 2007 to October 2009 as is clear from the condition of the car. Further the car in question is not in a position that it might start with key because it requires change of all the diesel fuel injectors whose cost is more than Rs. 50,000/- whereas on the other hand, Ops have failed to rebut the aforesaid inspection report made in their presence at their workshop rather they are retaining the car in question at their workshop since October, 2009 instead of replacing the aforesaid injectors and other parts of the car and making it roadworthy which is admittedly a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Further the objections raised by the Ops that Jeewan Ram, who filed the previous complaint No. 185 of 2009 titled as Jeewan Ram vs. M/s Metro Motors before this Forum is the registered owner of the car in question is also not tenable as Ops have failed to provide any document wherefrom it is concluded that Jeewan Ram is the first purchaser or registered owner of the car in question. Rather, aforesaid Jeewan Ram is the real brother of Krishan Lal complainant and was getting the car in question serviced/repaired etc. at the workshop of Ops at Jagadhri and that is why, most of the job cards were having his name and due to this technical defect, he withdraw the previous complaint No. 185 of 2009 with permission to file the fresh complaint on same cause of action which the Forum was pleased to grant the same vide order dated 19.2.2010 which have been placed on file by the complainant as Annexure C-27.
7. In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that Ops have failed to provide proper services to the complainant qua the car in question and thus they are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant. Besides it, Ops have also committed unfair trade practice by retaining the car in question at their workshop since October, 2009 resulting into further damage of the car. Hence, in these circumstances, we have no option except to allow the present complaint and thus we direct the Ops to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the receipt of this order:-
a) To replace the defective car in question with a new one of the same model and if the same model is not available, then to refund the price of the car ie. Rs. 5,89,948/-
alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 6.10.2009 i.e. the date wherefrom the car is lying parked at the workshop of OP No. 1 to till its realisation.
b) To pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and for depriving the complainant from availing the facility of car in question for such a long period of about 5 years i.e. @ Rs. 20,000/- per year.
c) To pay further a sum of Rs. 5500/- on account of litigation charges including the Advocate's fee etc.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, OP-1 (M/s Metro Motors) filed FA/828/2014 on 22.09.2014, and OP-2 (Tata Motors Marketing and Customer Support) filed FA/858/2014 on 29.09.2014 before the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, challenging the findings and directions of the District Forum. The State Commission, vide order dated 13.08.2015, after considering the rival submissions and material available on record, observed that the District Forum had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the factual matrix of the case. It noted that the vehicle in question had broken down on 06.10.2009, after having run 75,202 kilometers, and by that time, the warranty period had already expired. The Commission further observed that the Opposite Parties had written letters dated 10.11.2009 and 24.03.2010 to the complainant, requesting authorization to carry out the repairs on a payment basis, as the car was no longer covered under the warranty. However, despite repeated communications, the complainant neither permitted the Opposite Parties to repair the Page 5 of 13 vehicle at his own cost nor took back the vehicle from the workshop. The State Commission held that the alleged immediate problem--choking of injectors--could not be termed a manufacturing defect, and therefore, the District Forum had erred in directing replacement of the vehicle or refund of its price. Accordingly, finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the State Commission allowed both the appeals filed by M/s Metro Motors and Tata Motors Ltd., set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, and dismissed the consumer complaint. The operative portion of Order of State Commission is reproduced as under:
"5. It is not disputed that the car had broken down on October Sth, 2009 after running 75202 Kms. It is also not disputed that by then the warranty period of the car had expired. It has also come on the record that the opposite parties wrote letters Annexure-A and Annexure-B requiring the complainant to permit them to carry out the repairs against payment, the vehicle being not covered under the warranty. The complainant did not take any step to authorize the opposite parties to carry out the repairs against payment and insisted the opposite parties that the vehicle be repaired treating the same within warranty.
6. The contention raised on behalf of the complainant was that there were complaints during the warranty period also. However, the problem for which thervehicle broke down, was chocking of injectors which can neither be treated as manufacturing defect nor could be covered within warranty. That besides, the complainant was being repeatedly asked to authorize the opposite parties to repair the car against payment yet he did not take any steps to get the vehicle being put in order. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts of the case and evidence available on the record Hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.
7. In view of the above, both the appeals are accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing each of the appeals be refunded to the respective appellants Opposite Parties, against proper receipt and identification in J accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. "
5. Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission. The Petitioner/Complainant contended that the State Commission erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the District Forum without properly appreciating the material evidence on record including the service history and the expert report. It was argued that, firstly, the State Commission failed to consider that the vehicle had been facing persistent mechanical issues since its purchase and that repeated repairs during the warranty period clearly indicated an inherent manufacturing defect. Secondly, it was contended that the cryptic findings of the State Commission were unsupported by any technical or expert report and based merely on assumptions, whereas the Opposite Parties failed to produce any credible evidence disproving the defects found by the District Forum. Thirdly, the complainant asserted that the State Commission overlooked the fact that the vehicle remained with the dealer for a long duration without being made roadworthy, amounting to gross Page 6 of 13 deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. The detailed service history of the vehicle, as placed on record by the complainant, is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
Date of KMs Run Complaints I Description Repeat Major Parts Replaced Service Compla (Description Only) int?
16.05.2007 0 ____________ Purchase____________
21.07.2007 5,134 First free service; scheduled service; No Front strut (RH) removed
wheel rims bent (wheel rim repair (Warranty)
recorded)______
25.07.2007 6,219 Fuel system checks for leaks; low fuel No Alternator belt
average; A/C airflow less____________
17.09.2007 11,086 Brake/parking/number plate lights not No Fuel pressure line (pump
working; ride bumpy; headlight to rail) (Warranty)
focusing improper; undercarriage noise
25.09.2007 12,847 Cold starting problem; screeching No Poly V-belt; Fuel
noise from engine pressure line (pump to
rail) (Warranty)________
15.11.2007 19,229 Scheduled service; A/C airflow less; No Routine service items
engine oil leakage; engine noise high; (engine oil kit, oil filter,
bonnet not opening_______________ etc.)_________________
31.12.2007 24,482 Scheduled/Paid service; engine oil No Oil sump gasket; Gasket
leakage; engine noise; poor pick-up; sealant; other gaskets
undercarriage noise______________ and sump components
11.03.2008 32,584 Cold starting problem; washer spray No Adjust fuel engine
not proper; A/C,cooling insufficient; injection pump timing
door rattling; engine noise high_____
29.05.2008 41,625 Scheduled service; door noisy on No Clutch disc assembly;
closing; A/C switches not working Clutch cover assembly
30.05.2008 41650 Clutch hard_____________________ No Clutch panel replaced
30.06.2008 43321 Gear stuck No Transmission assemble
and alternator belt renew.
11.10.2008 49689 Gear stuck, hard suspension, A/C No Air filter, clean catalytic
cooling insufficient convertor, front wheel
alignment.____________
20.10.2008 50,070 Gear slips; seat problems; A/C blower No Transmission dismantle
noisy and assemble and
replace real seat latch
18.12.2008 53,470 A/C switches/controls not working; A/C No Alternator belt renewed;
noise_________________________ A/C system checked
09.01.2009 --____ Complaint entry (no specific details)
17.01.2009 55,757 Cold starting problem No Timing belt, Crankshaft
gear; Fuel lines to
injectors; Fuel pressure
line (pump to rail)
(Warranty)_____
24.01.2009 55,845 Engine oil leakage and cold starting Yes Alternator replaced
problem_______________________
20.02.2009 57,487 Undercarriage noise; brakes No Front suspension bush
insufficient; scheduled service kit; Ball joints (LH & front
ARB); Screws (M12);
Brake pad kit
Page 7 of 13
24.04.2009 62,291 Engine RPM high; fuel leakage; No Inlet manifold gasket
scheduled service (customer refused
some paid work) _____________
26.06.2009 68,541 Accident repairs; A/C and accident No Front fender (RH);
claim work Windshield glass (tinted);
Windshield mould;
Sealant; Bolts (M6x20);
Headlamp (RH); Fog
lamp bezel (RH);______
05.10.2009|75,202 At service Station, repairs not authorised by Complainant
6. Petitioner further submitted that the vehicle suffered from recurring defects since its purchase, including replacement of the fuel pump thrice, engine head, alternator, timing belt once, and air conditioner 5-6 times, clearly indicating an inherent manufacturing defect. The State Commission failed to appreciate that these defects arose during the warranty period and were confirmed by the report of the Court Commissioner being Government Automobile Instructor from ITI Yamuna Nagar, who found manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The said report was neither rebutted nor challenged by the respondents. The State Commission erred in ignoring this expert report and the evidence on record and wrongly held that the defects occurred after the expiry of the warranty.
6.1 The Respondent No. 1, Tata Motors Ltd., submits that the State Commission correctly held that the vehicle had broken down on 05.10.2009 after running 75,202 kms, much beyond its warranty period, and that the complainant failed to authorize repairs on payment despite repeated requests through letters dated 10.11.2009 and 24.03.2010. The defect cited--choking of fuel injectors--was due to fuel adulteration and could not be termed a manufacturing defect. The District Forum erred in relying on an inspection report obtained in another case and ignored the objections filed by the Respondents. The State Commission rightly relied on precedents, including Goyal Motors v. Arvind Gupta, II (2015) CPJ 506 (NC), Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. v.
Kanika Bhargava, II (2016) CPJ 148 (NC), and Jay Malhotra v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Ill (2002) CPJ 95 (NC), where it was held that a vehicle that has been extensively used--over 60,000 to 70,000 kms--cannot be said to have a manufacturing defect. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TELCO v. Gajanan Y. Mandrekar, (1997) 5 SCC 507, and this Commission in Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra, I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) held that extensive use of a vehicle is inconsistent with any claim of inherent defect. In the present case before us, the vehicle having run more than 75,000 Page 8 of 13 kms within 2.5 years (over 2,000 kms per month) negates the allegation of a manufacturing defect. Moreover, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the order suffers from perversity or jurisdictional error, as laid down in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) and Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd., Ill (2016) CPJ 27 (SC). No such irregularity has been demonstrated here. The record shows that the petitioner ignored multiple requests to authorize repairs, and the vehicle was later abandoned after an accident, having already been repaired earlier by the authorized dealer, Metro Motors, at 68,541 kms under an insurance claim. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Tata Motors. Even if any mishandling had occurred at the dealer's end, the manufacturer cannot be held liable, as settled in Tata Motors v. Antonio Paulo Vaz I (2021) CPJ 109 (SC). Hence, the revision petition deserves dismissal as the impugned order of the State Commission is legal, justified, and based on proper appreciation of facts and law.
6.2 The Respondent No.2/M/s Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. argued that the petitioner purchased a Tata Marina car on 16.05.2007 from Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt, with an 18-month warranty, and the vehicle broke down on 06.10.2009 after covering 75,202 kms--well beyond the warranty period. The car was brought to Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt, with a starting issue caused by injector problems, as recorded in Job Slip No. 6947. Despite letters dated 10.11.2009 and 24.03.2010 requesting authorization to repair the vehicle on payment basis, the petitioner failed to respond. The car had also met with a major accident on 26.06.2009 at 68,541 kms, and the breakdown was due to normal wear and tear, not any manufacturing defect. The District Forum's order directing replacement of the car was rightly set aside by the State Commission vide order dated 13.08.2015, holding that no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service existed. The dealer has been prompt and efficient and there is no complaint qua the violation of any warranty condition or deficiency in service by the dealer. The present revision petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds, being beyond statutory time-limit, beyond warranty, and being not a valid consumer dispute. The vehicle remains parked at the petitioner's risk in Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt, and both the dealerships have no liability as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The reasoning in the order of the State Commission is well-founded, and calls for no interference.
Page 9 of 136.4 The inspection reports dated 29.10.2009 and 24.12.2009 submitted by the Court Commissioner (in earlier complaint filed by Jeevan Ram, which was withdrawn with liberty) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Automobile Instructor, I.T.I. Yamuna Nagar, is extracted as under: .
"To, The Hon'ble President, District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar.
Subject: Car Inspection HR-02R-2478 (Tata Indica Marina) Case No.: 4057 (Jeevan Ram vs. M/s Metro Motors) Respected Sir, As per your kind instructions, the car was checked/inspected in I.T.I. (Yamuna Nagar). After studying the statements of both parties, it is concluded that the car was damaged while coming from Chandigarh to Yamuna Nagar and is parked at Ambala, the authorized service centre of Tata Motors. The fuel injectors of the car were checked and found damaged, due to which the car cannot start.
We requested Tata Motors Service Centre, Jagadhri, to repair and start the car. They informed us that the car will start only when a new fuel injector is fitted. The cost of the fuel injector is ^50,000 or more, and they stated that the car will be repaired only when the car owner permits them to proceed.
They further stated that the car can be checked from the inside out, including the body, frame, chassis, and interior parts, but the movable parts like the engine, gearbox, differential, and air conditioning system cannot be inspected or checked unless the car is in a start condition. For further action, you are hereby informed. Dated: 29.10.2009 Sd/-
Sanjeev Kumar Automobile Instructor I.T.I., Yamuna Nagar"
"To, The Hon 'ble President, District Consumer Forum, Jagadhri - Yamuna Nagar.
Case No.: 4875 (Hearing 24.02.2009), Titled as: Jeevan Ram vs. M/s Metro Motors, R.C. No. HR02R2478, Make: Tata Motors Ltd., Model: Tata Marina LX Dicor E-lll (2007), Class of Vehicle: LM.L., Chassis No.: 603454BSZP25984, Engine No.: 14 DICOR 05 BSZ-P-23677, Sitting Capacity: 5 Persons, No. of Cylinders: 4, H.P/C.C.: 1396, Unladen Weight: 1130 kg, Last Meter Reading: 75,202 km Respected Sir, As per your kind instructions, the car was checked/inspected in the workshop of Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt., on 22.02.2009, in the presence of the Works Manager and other employees. During the checking, it was found that the car was brought from Barwala to Ambala in a breakdown condition. When the mechanic opened the car for repair, he found that the diesel fuel injectors were choked and could not be repaired, and that the only remedy was to replace them. The cost of replacement is ^50,000 or more.
The car will start only when the new diesel fuel injectors are fitted. The car was checked without starting it. After opening the bonnet, its parts were found to be in open position. The mechanic of the workshop, after checking the car, informed the owner and Works Manager about the faults. As a result, the car could not be started. During checking, I requested to start the car, upon which the Works Manager stated that the injectors would be changed and the car started only when the owner permitted them to do so.
The car has travelled a total distance of 75,202 km and has a 1396 cc engine. The fuel injectors of such a vehicle do not normally get choked in such a short running. The records show that breakdowns had occurred earlier also during the warranty period. The job cards and bills reveal the nature of the faults and the parts replaced each time.Page 10 of 13
Engine:
In the engine, the head, leak, and crank were replaced at Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt. The timing belt was changed at Metro Motors, Jagadhri. The fuel pump had stopped working and was replaced at Metro Motors, Jagadhri. All breakdowns occurred on the road, and repairs were carried out with the company's assistance each time. Engine oil leakage was repeatedly found. The fuel and brake pipes also required repeated attention. Note:
The warranty of the car was valid from May 2007 to November 2008. During this period of 18 months, the car experienced repeated engine faults, and now the fuel injectors are found choked. These facts indicate that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Apart from this, other issues have also been observed. The chassis of the car is not in proper condition, and the roof panel of the car body is dented due to jerks while driving. The roof of the car was found to be uneven.
Front Bumper:
In the front bumper, where the fog lights are installed, the plastic panel and locks were weak and were found broken, along with the lights, possibly due to driving jerks. After examining the workshop job cards, it is revealed that fuel and engine oil leaked frequently. The gearbox and clutch plates were repaired and replaced. The front suspension shockers were changed. The air conditioner blower emitted water along with air inside the cabin, and the fan air adjuster was not functioning properly.
All these facts, seen from the job cards, indicate faults due to improper casting of the engine, incorrect grinding of the crankshaft, camshaft, timing valve, cylinder head, and defective functioning of the main and big bearings. Improper fuel combustion in the combustion chamber and choking of injectors due to exhaust system faults are the root causes behind repeated engine damage. From these facts, it is clear that the recurring faults in the car are due to inherent manufacturing defects.
Due to the reasons stated above, all these facts are hereby submitted for your kind consideration.
Rs. 2 deposited vide Challan No. 24 dated 03.03.2010.
Sanjeev Kumar Automobile Instructor I.T.I., Yamuna Nagar Dated: 24.12.2009"
7. We have heard learned counsel for both parties at length and carefully perused the records. Upon thoughtful consideration of the material available on file, the arguments advanced, and the findings rendered by the fora below,, it is seen that the crux of the dispute hinges on whether the vehicle in question, namely Tata Marina LX Dicor E-lll, suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect or whether the issues faced by the complainant were due to subsequent wear and tear and maintenance lapses after prolonged use. The service history placed on record reveals that the vehicle was purchased on 16.05.2007 and remained in use for over two years till it broke down on 06.10.2009, by which time it had covered 75,202 kilometers. Though indeed the vehicle has repeatedly been sent to service station (20 times, once after accident), each time there appears to be prompt service. Most times, the complaints appear non-repeat or minor or qua components which can certainly not be "manufacturing defect" but which have been duly attended to by the dealer. The extensive running of daily average running of nearly 80KM demonstrates that it provided satisfactory Page 11 of 13 performance for a substantial period before developing the last reported fault, which appears to be a breakdown due to chocking of the fuel injector. As rightly submitted, the chocking of fuel injector is a function at least partially, if not wholly, of the quality of the fuel being used.. The job cards and service bills substantiate that several repairs and part replacements were carried out during the warranty period as part of standard maintenance and not necessarily indicative of any inherent or established manufacturing defect. It is well settled that automobiles, being mechanical products are subject to continuous wear and tear, and may require occasional replacement of components without necessarily implying a defect in manufacture. The inspection report dated 29.12.2009 relied upon by the complainant was though of an ITI automobile instructor as a Court Commissioner, but he has simply analysed the past job-cards, without even having run the vehicle, to come to a conclusion of "manufacturing defect" which we find not well-reasoned and fulfilling the criteria of an expert report. The report does not demonstrate technical analysis supported by scientific testing or manufacturing parameters and, therefore, cannot be treated as a valid expert report for concluding any manufacturing defect. The Opposite Parties have placed on record letters dated 10.11.2009 and 24.03.2010, wherein the complainant was requested to authorize paid repair work since the vehicle had already exhausted its warranty period. The complainant's failure to furnish such authorization and his refusal to take delivery of the vehicle after the job estimate was communicated indicate adamant attitude and non-cooperation, which contributed to its continued detention in the workshop for which, as rightly observed by the State Commission, is no deficiency in service on the part of the dealer.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the vehicle had earlier met with an accident on 26.06.2009, a material fact admitted by the complainant himself. The nature of the fault or complaint that later developed, namely choking of injectors, could reasonably occur due to fuel adulteration or poor fuel quality, and not necessarily from an inherent defect in the manufacturing process. The records thus do not establish any consistent or systemic fault traceable to the manufacturer. The fact that the vehicle has been run for nearly 2.5 years and for 75000 KM would. negate any manufacturing defect or continuous irritant in running the vehicle. The visits to service station per se also cannot be equated with any faulty manufacturing or deficient service in the absence of any well-founded and well-reasoned expert report. The report of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar merely analyses past job-cards, without even running the vehicle. No scientifically and Page 12 of 13
-e 4- objectively measured parameters have been recorded and juxtaposed with any standards so as to logically and legally come to the conclusion of any manufacturing defect. In view of these facts, and consistent with the rulings in TELCO v. Gajanan Y. Mandrekar, (1997) 5 SCC 507, Classic Automobiles v. Lila Nand Mishra, I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC), and Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. v. Kanika Bhargava, II (2016) CPJ 148 (NC), a vehicle that has run more than 60,000 to 70,000 kilometers cannot ordinarily be said to suffer from a manufacturing defect merely because of later mechanical failures after more than two years of purchase is noticed. The abandonment of the vehicle by the owner after the vehicle has met with, and has been repaired after, an accident, is also a matter of concern particularly so when vehicle has been made to run for nearly 75000KM in two years. The State Commission has rightly appreciated these aspects and has correctly concluded that there was no manufacturing defect, no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. We find no perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum's reliance on an unverified technical report and its direction for replacement/refund were clearly unsustainable in law and has rightly been set aside by the State Commission.
9. The revision petition is dismissed.
J Sd/-
( A.P. SAHI, J. ) PRESIDENT Sd/-
( BHARATKUMAR PANDYA) MEMBER Pawan/aj Page 13 of 13