State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tata Motors Ltd. vs Harpreet Singh & Anr. on 21 March, 2022
FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 719/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.
ACTING THROUGH ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE:
SH. ASHOK SETHI
(Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate)
...Appellant
VERSUS
SHRI. HARPREET SINGH
R/O S-392, FIRST FLOOR,
GREATER KAILASH PART-I,
NEW DELHI
(Through: Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate)
M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.
BOMBAY HOUSE, 24 HOMI MODY STREET
HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI
... Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 486/2014
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.
BOMBAY HOUSE, 24 HOMI MODY STREET
HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI.
(Through: Sehgal & Associates)
...Appellant
VERSUS
SHRI HARPREET SINGH
MODIFIED PAGE 1 OF 10
FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
R/O S-392, FIRST FLOOR,
GREATER KAILASH PART-I,
NEW DELHI -110048
(Through: Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate)
SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
D-13/1, DEFENCE COLONY,
NEW DELHI -110024
... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MR. RAJAN SHARMA, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
Present: None for parties.
PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals i.e. FA-719/2014 and FA-
486/2014, filed against the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2014.
2. The facts of the case, in both appeals, as per the District Forum record are:
"The case of the complainant is that on 14.5.2004, he had purchased a new Car make TATA Indica V2 bearing registration no. DL-3CAC-1969 for a sum of Rs. 3,71,418.00 manufactured by OP-1 through its dealer OP2. The basic warrantee provide by the OPs was for 18 months and extended warranty for 3 years from the date of its purchase. The car was covered for any manufacturing or workmanship defects by the manufacturer. Complainant alleged that immediately from the day one it started giving problems to him. He reported the same to the OP-2 just after a week, the vehicle was also left at service station but the complained defects were not rectified. Complainant MODIFIED PAGE 2 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 alleged that the vehicle was having defects like faulty shock absorber, low mileage poor pick up with AC Engine, switching off with AC, leaking power steering Assy, AC had poor cooling, noisy silencer, engine oil leakage, gear box Assy, which jerked like a crank when the accelerator was released and pressed again, besides some other problems as detailed and described in para no. 12 of its affidavit. For removal of such defects, complainant had taken the vehicle at the service station on 13.7.04, 4.8.04, 12.10.04, 16.3.05, 20.7.05, 15.9.05 and 4.10.08. Complainant further alleged that inspite of changing/modifying and replacing the parts, the defects still persisted. He has further alleged that though the vehicle was under warranty period yet the OP-2 demanded money and paid as per bills (Ex.C10 (Colly)). Not only that, on 15.9.05, when the vehicle was left with OP-2, its engineer while driving the same met with an accident with a truck resulting a lot of damage to his car. Though OP-2 initially informed him to lodge an FIR but later on he did not lodge any FIR. However, complainant took the photographs of the accidental vehicle (Ex.C-11 to Ex. C14). Complainant sent number of letters/e-mail to the OP-2 requesting it to repair the vehicle to his satisfaction but latter failed to rectify the defects which were of manufacturing, in nature. On 24.2.06, complainant got his vehicle inspected through Mechanical Automobile Engineer and after thoroughly inspection of his vehicle opined that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect. Even the pollution level of the vehicle was so excessive that he was unable to get the pollution certificate from the authority concerned. Supply of such vehicle, which was having manufacturing defects amounted to indulging into unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence, complainant brought this complaint before this Forum."
3. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 09.04.2014, whereby it held as under:
" Now the most important point to be considered by this Forum is as to whether the vehicle supplied to the MODIFIED PAGE 3 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 complainant had major defects warranting its replacement.
9. Ld. Counsel for the parties argued the case of their parties on the lines of above averment of their cases. Complainant has brought on record the job cards dated 13.7.04, 4.8.04, 12.10.04, 16.3.05, 20.7.05, 15.9.05,
4.10.05, 18.11.05, 13.12.05, 19.2.06 and on perusing the same, it is quite evident that every time complainant had paid some amount to the OPs either for its replacement of the parts or service. Complainant has also brought on record the inspection report of his vehicle dated 24.2.06 through Balvinder Singh Cheema, Mechanical Automobile Engineer and who made the following opinion with regard to the condition of the vehicle:
"OPINION - In my opinion the subject vehicle has seen maximum trouble that any other vehicle could have probably seen. Even after repeated visits to the TML service station/workshop the vehicle is still not working properly and there is no hope seeing the track record of TML and its Dealer that they can bring the vehicle in good condition."
10. After giving out thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and on perusing the above report of the Mechanical Automobile Engineer, we are of the opinion that the defects as pointed out by the complainant and the report as submitted by the expert, it is quite evident that the complainant could not enjoy the benefit of purchasing a brand new vehicle from the OPs. Major defects developed in the short span of purchase of the vehicle. The above mentioned defects were reported by the complainant just after purchasing the vehicle itself. It was contended by the complainant that the vehicle if at all was a reliable one could not bring out so many defects. The car had needed frequent and extensive repairs even the very first year of its purchase. There is no doubt that many a times the parts were replaced by the OPS but that does not absolve OPs from their liability to supply a defective vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle in question had developed various defects for which various letters were written by the complainant to the OPS regarding the defects. It is a misconceived MODIFIED PAGE 4 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 notion that unless a brand new vehicle or goods suffers from inherent defects, the same cannot be ordered to be replaced or the defective parts to be replaced.
11. On the other hand, it was also contended by the OPs that the pointed out defects were not the manufacturing defects. The manufacturing defects are much more than the ordinary defects which can be cured by replacing the defective parts. Ld. Counsel for the OPS cited the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr. - III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) and wherein it was observed that "
Manufacturing defect is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing a machinery. To prove such a defect, opinion of an Expert is necessary." On the basis of above authority, it was contended that the expert opinion tendered by the complainant was given exparte without any notice to the OPS and therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration.
12. From our above findings and observations, we are of the view that whenever a person purchases a new good and if the same is found to be so defective that it needs to be replaced by another new good of similar description, then the same be replaced by such a good, which is free from any defect, on the request of the complainant. But such replacement is not a pragmatic solution. So, in our view, the disputes between the consumer, the service providers and the traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and the manufacturers to refund the cost of the vehicle or the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being upto the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation. Merely because the appellant had run vehicle for 40,260 kms, reluctantly and grudgingly after taking it on number of occasions to the garage does not mean that the manufacturer of defective goods can escape from its liability. So, we hold both the OPS guilty of deficiency of service and direct them to refund the entire cost of the vehicle and on account of interest, to pay a lumpsum of Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant. However, MODIFIED PAGE 5 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 complainant shall return the used/defective vehicle to the OPS on receipt of payment from the OPs.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, M/s Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Dealer') has preferred the Appeal no. 719/2014 contending that the impugned order was passed by two members of the District Forum and the entire quorum was not present, hence the impugned judgment is non-est in the eyes of law. It submitted that the District forum wrongly relied upon the expert report filed by Respondent No. 1. It further submitted that the Appellant is only a service provider, who sells cars manufactured by Respondent No. 2 and therefore, it cannot be directed to be liable for manufacturing defects.
5. On the other hand, M/s Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Manufacturer') has preferred the Appeal no. 486/2014 and contended that the terms of warranty are binding qua the parties and no relief can be granted beyond the warranty period. It further submitted that no liability can be fastened on the manufacturer after the expiry of warranty period. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, both the Dealer and the Manufacturer prayed to set aside the judgment of the District Forum.
6. Mr. Harpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent'), denied all the allegations of the Dealer & Manufacturer and submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment as the entire material available on record was properly scrutinized before passing the said order.
7. We have perused the Appeal, Reply of the respondent, written submissions of all the parties, the District Forum Record and Impugned Judgment dated 09.04.2013.
MODIFIED PAGE 6 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
8. The Dealer contented that since the order was passed by only two members of the District forum, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. To comment on this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Rule 4(4) & (5) of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, which provided as under :
"4. Place of sitting and other matter relating to District Forum (4) Sitting of the District Forum, as and when necessary, shall be convened by the President.
(5) No act or proceedings of the District Forum shall be invalid by reason only the existence of any vacancy among its members or any defect in its constitution."
9. Perusal of the above statutory provision reflects that the sitting of the district commission shall be convened by the President and no proceedings of the District commission shall be invalid by reason of any defect in constitution of its members. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is noted that the impugned judgment was passed by the President of the District commission along with a member. Therefore, the said contention of the Dealer is without any merit.
10. The Dealer further submitted that the District forum wrongly relied upon the expert report filed by Respondent as the same was filed without the necessary application. Since Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation to provide speedy, inexpensive and hassle-free redressal to the grievance of the consumers, there is no provision that restricts the consumer commission from allowing a document to be on record without a prior application. Although the acceptance of expert report without an application is an irregularity, but it does not affect the merits of the case in hand. We are not required to enter into technicalities, with a view to deny substantial justice to the parties. Therefore, this contention of the Dealer also holds no merit.
MODIFIED PAGE 7 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022
11. The Dealer further submits that the it is only a service provider, who sells cars manufactured by the Manufacturer and had duly provided the services to the respondent, hence, they are not liable for deficiency in service. To elucidate on the question whether the car had manufacturing defects or not, we deem it appropriate to refer to the case of Nuzhat vs Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in I (2020) CPJ 65(NC), wherein the Hon'ble NCDRC has held as under:
"16. The definition of 'defect' as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act is reproduced as hereunder:
" '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."
As can be seen 'defect' means any imperfection in quality or quantity or any fault. In the instant case when noise in the engine was not rectified and the low pickup continued, clutch plates were also replaced within few months of the purchase, it cannot be stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the car.
19. In the instant case, it is seen that the Job Cards as well as the report given by M/s. S.G. Motors has established the case of the Petitioner that there were manufacturing defects in the car. Manufacturing defect is a defect which persistently comes up and cannot be rectified even after attempts made by the Dealer. The Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition (Indian Edition) definition of defect is as under:
" a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack.'
20. For all the afore-noted reasons and keeping in view the definition of defects as defined under Section MODIFIED PAGE 8 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 2(1)(f) of the Act as well as the definition of 'defect', the Job Cards and the expert opinion of S.G. Motors, I am of the considered view that the said vehicle had a manufacturing defect and the Manufacturer shall take back the car and instead of a direction to replace the car with a new one.''
12. Returning to the facts of the present case, it is noted from the numerous Job-cards dated 13.07.2004, 04.08.2204, 12.10.2004, 16.03.2005, 20.07.2005, 15.09.2005, 04.10.2005, 18.11.2005, 03.12.2005, 19.02.2006 & 04.10.2006 that defects in the vehicle in question were persistent and was not rectified even after various attempts by dealer. It is therefore established that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question.
13. On perusal of the job cards available on record, it is noted that the Dealer had duly provided all the post-sale services to the respondent, as and when required with respect to the vehicle in question. The dealer is only responsible for his services to the buyers and therefore, the dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defects on the part of Manufacturer.
14. The Manufacturer further relied on Unity and Trust Society Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda (1995) 2 SCC150 and Union of India Vs. Seppo Rally (1999) 8 SCC 357 and Godfrey Phillips vs. Ajay Kumar reported in JT 2008 (SC) 647, contending that District Forum erred by awarding relief U/s. 14 of the Act as the respondent failed to show any loss or injury on account of negligence by it. The Manufacturer is gravely mistaken with the present contention. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to deliver a product which is of merchantile quality and adheres to the industry standards. When it fails to do so, it can be construed that it has fell short of its responsibility. It has been already established that the car had several manufacturing MODIFIED PAGE 9 OF 10 FA/719/2014 SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 FA/486/2014 TATA MOTORS LTD. VS. HARPREET SINGH & ANR. D.O.D: 21.03.2022 defects due to the paucity of the Manufacturer, which hindered the right of the Respondent of enjoying a quality product. Therefore, we hold that the Respondent has suffered loss or injury on account of negligence by the Manufacturer.
15. In these circumstances, we hold the Manufacturer liable for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question and hold that the Dealer is not liable to be burdened with the payment of the decretal amount as directed by order dated 09.04.2014. Consequently, the burden of paying the whole decretal amount is on the Manufacturer (M/s Tata Motors Ltd.) of the vehicle in question.
16. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
17. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (MR. RAJAN SHARMA) JUDICIAL (MEMBER) Pronounced on:
21.03.2022 MODIFIED PAGE 10 OF 10