National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. ... vs T. Nagaraju on 27 April, 2000
ORDER
Suhas C. Sen, J. President
1. This case has a long history. T. Nagaraju, the Complainant, had purchased a Tata Estate Model Automobile from V.S.T. Motors. He took delivery of vehicle on 3rd September, 1992. The case of the Complainant before the State Commission was that within a few days of the purchase of the vehicle he noticed serval defects which were pointed out to V.S.T. Motors Ltd. at the time of the 1st service on 28.9.1992. The first service was done, but the defects pointed in the vehicle were not cured. The second service of the vehicle was done on 2.12.1992. The defects were once again brought to the notice of the V.S.T. Motors, but they did nothing to rectify the defects. The Complainant, therefore, after writing to the manufacturer, M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (TELCO) and also their regional sales office at Madras lodged a complaint under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act before the State Commission. TELCO filed an affidavit denying the allegations of manufacturing defects and also supported the counter affidavit filed by the V.S.T. Motors Ltd.
2. The V.S.T. Motors Ltd. in its detailed counter stated that the vehicle was purchased on 3.9.1992, it was brought for the first service on 25.9.1992 when it had travelled 4,327 Kms. The vehicle was checked, the minor problems which had developed were corrected and the vehicle after first service was returned on 28.9.1992. During the second service, after attending to the minor problems which had developed, the vehicle was returned to the complainant on 27.10.1992. It was once against brought for service on 2.12.1992 and thereafter, on 11.3.1993. Besides normal servicing, loose connection of the air conditioning blower was corrected, front rear shock absorbers were replaced, the rear upper and lower link bushes numbering eight were replaced, the electrical system was checked and loose connections were corrected, three tyres were replaced as a measure of goodwill, the diesel overflow tube was replaced and the lid of the wiper water container was replaced. After the fourth service the complainant did not bring back the vehicle for servicing or for any rectification. A point was raised that the failure to have the servicing done on the stipulated dates had the result of terminating the warranty given for the car at the time of sale. This point, however, has not been seriously pressed. The State Commission after a review of the facts directed the Opposite Parties to refund to the complainant the price of the vehicle and take back the car sold to the complainant. Directions were also given for costs and compensation towards mental pain and agony.
3. On appeal this Commission felt that it was necessary to have a report from a technical expert to ascertain whether the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect and, if so, the nature and extent of those defects. Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, was requested to depute an expert to inspect the vehicle at No. 52, Veerappa Nagar, III Cross, Krishna Giri, Tamil Nadu. After examination of the vehicle, M.K. Chaudhari, the expert deputed by ARAI, reported that the performance of the vehicle with respect to fuel consumption, oil consumption, engine startability was satisfactory. The expert noted that he had driven the vehicle for 223 Kms. without any difficulty. He also reported that there was no servicing, greasing, oiling and due to ageing effect of rubber components most of the rubber components were damaged, as a result of which there was some wobbling and pulling on the left side. The expert concluded that it would not be appropriate to hold that the vibrations were du to manufacturing defects as no physical cracks, wear and deterioration were observed.
4. After considering this report of A.R.A.I. and also going through the various facts brought on record and the affidavit filed in this case, this Commission ultimately held "we accept the report of the A.R.A.I. in respect of this vehicle and, therefore, set aside the Order of the State Commission and allow the appeal. There will be no order as to costs."
5. A Special Leave Petition was filed against the order to the Supreme Court which by its order dated 5.9.1997 passed the following order :
"The S.L.P. is dismissed; leaving it open to the Petitioner to move the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, for the ancillary relief of getting the defects of the vehicle cured, as pointed out by the Expert, at the Respondent's expense".
6. After the order passed by the Supreme Court on 5.9.1997, the Petitioner waited for nearly a year and half before moving another application on 25.2.1999 for ancillary relief of getting the defects of the vehicle cured" which were pointed out by A.R.A.I.
7. The A.R.A.I. in its report have pointed out four defects which needed correction. It may be mentioned that the complainant was keeping the vehicle idle for a number of years and due to non-user and non-maintenance, various problems had cropped up. When the application was taken up for hearing, the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to approach TELCO to get the following four defects rectified ;
1. Engine mounting rubber pads,
2. Center bearing rubber,
3. All suspension rubber bushes,
4. Timing belt (rubber).
8. The petitioner in its application now has prayed for the following order:-
(a) direct the respondent No. 1-3 herein to repair and change all the deteriorated parts of the car viz. Tata Estate Car purchased by the petitioner on 3.2.1992 and make it roadworthy running condition.
9. The petitioner did not confine its prayer to the defects pointed out by the expert which was noted in the order of the Supreme Court in its order dated 5.9.97 but wanted to go beyond that order and in effect wanted a thorough overhaul of the vehicle.
10. Thereafter, the case has been adjourned from time to time. The petitioner by his original complaint has in effect sought to re-open the entire case altogether. The earlier order dated 8.1.1997 of this Commission has become final. The S.L.P. against it has been dismissed. The limited relief given to the petitioner by the Supreme Court was to approach this Commission about the curing of the defects pointed out by the expert appointed by A.R.A.I. The earlier decision of this Commission that there was no manufacturing defect has not reversed by the Supreme Court.
11. The Commission directed the complainant to produce the vehicle before TELCO to carry out the necessary repairs.
12. The expert deputed by A.R.A.I. had stated that some bobbling and pulling on the left side of the vehicle was experienced by the expert while driving the vehicle. The expert had commented that the vehicle had been kept idle for three years. No servicing, greasing, oiling was carried out and due to age effect of the rubber components most of the rubber components had perished. Due to this the alignment of the vehicle was out of limit which caused the wobbling and pulling on the left side. The expert had observed that the vibrations observed could be minimised or controlled by replacement of the rubber components.
13. In view of these facts we directed T. Nagaraju the complainant to produce the car before TELCO to get the defects which wee enumerated at page 37 of the paper book rectified. This order was passed on 14.9.99.
14. Today when the case was taken up for hearing the TELCO complained that the vehicle had not been brought by Nagaraju of doing the necessary repairs or replacements of rubber parts and components as directed by this Commission. No plausible explantation could be given on behalf of T. Nagaraju why they could not produce the vehicle before TELCO for carrying out the order of this Commission.
15. It appears that Nagaraju is prolonging the matter quite unnecessarily. The order of the Supreme Court was passed on 5.9.97. T. Nagaraju waited for one a half year before moving this application on 25.2.99. We overlooked the delay and passed an order on 14.9.99 directed TELCO to cure the defects pointed out by the expert. Nagaraju has not found time to produce the vehicle before TELCO for nearly 6 months. We are of the view that this application cannot be kept pending any further. We finally dispose it of by the following order.
16. The complainant Nagaraju must produce the vehicle within a period of 4 week before TELCO to get the defects mentioned in page 37 of the paper book rectified. TELCO will rectify the defects in terms of the earlier order dated 14.9.99 as expeditiously as possible. If Nagaraju fails to produce the vehicle for rectification as directed this application will stand dismissed without any further order of this Commission.
17. The application dated 25.9.99 is finally disposed of as above.