State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parminder Singh vs Tata Motors on 16 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
First Appeal No.819 of 2016
Date of Institution: 26.10.2016
Date of Reserve : 03.05.2017
Date of Decision : 16.05.2017
Parminder Singh son of Iqbal Singh, resident of House No.335,
Phase 3B-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Tata Motors SCO no.170-172, 1st Floor, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
2. Tata Motors, Marketing and Customer Support Passenger Car
Business Unit, One Forbes, 5th Floor, Dr.V.B.Gandhi Marg,
Fort, Mumbai-400023 through its Manager.
3. Macro Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Dealer of Tata Passenger
Cars, B-56, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali through its
Manager.
....Respondents/opposite parties
First Appeal against the order dated
20.09.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar
(Mohali)
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate For respondents No.1&2: Sh.Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Sh.Vikrant Guleria, Advocate HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM, MEMBER The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No.375 of 2015, dated 28.07.2015, vide which the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 2 complaint was partly allowed with directions to opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the amount charged for issuing the extended warranty to the complainant and also directed to pay `10,000/- on account of mental agony alongwith litigation costs. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 were further directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise they would be liable to pay 8% interest per annum on the total cost awarded.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased a TATA Manza vehicle on 29.07.2011 from Hind Motors (India) Ltd., Mohali for `6,05,894/-. It was pleaded that first free service was got done from Hind Motors, Mohali from where he purchased the car. The second free service was taken on 05.03.2012 from Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. at a mileage of 9948 kilometers. As per the service notice, parts mentioned at Sr.No.1, 2, 11 and 17 were replaced free of cost. It was averred that third free service was got done at mileage of 20403 kilometers from Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh on 11.10.2012 and payment of `7,140/- was paid by him. It has been averred that fourth free service was done on 22.05.2013 and he paid an amount of `8,237/- to Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. He pleaded that he purchased an extended warranty through Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh on 27.08.2012 for another 24 months in addition to manufacturer warranty period of 24 months period. Thus, the total warranty period for his car was for 48 months or at 1,50,000 kilometers from the date of purchase, whichever is earlier. The car started giving trouble from its purchase date itself and many parts were changed by the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 3 authorized service dealer of Tata Motors as the same were covered under warranty period. He averred that pick-up of his car was not upto the mark and it was firstly noticed by him when his car covered 12943 kilometers. He went to the Joshi Auto Zone who informed him that Turbo Compressor of the engine of his car was not working properly and replaced the said part free of cost. It assured him that the engine of the car is fine and problem of pick-up and black smoke emission from the exhaust pipe would not reoccur. However, engine started giving trouble again. He went to authorized service centre for that purpose. He was informed that the Injector in the engine requires to be replaced and the same was replaced as per tax invoice bill dated 06.10.2012. He further averred that in the month of July, 2013 the Air Conditioner of the car started giving trouble as it was not cooling the cabin of the car. He again visited the Joshi Auto Zone at Chandigarh, which detected the fault and changed Thermostat free of cost as the car was under warranty and he was assured that the A.C. of his car would work properly. However, after few days, cooling of A.C. of his car again became erratic and he again visited the workshop of Joshi Auto Zone. He was assured by the mechanical staff of the workshop that the A.C. would start functioning properly if the car would run at least 30 - 40 kilometers. He averred that even after that the A.C. did not work properly. In the month of August, 2013 when his car had run 35014 kilometers, he found that Driver Information System was not working consisting of Assembly Expansion Valve and Dash Board Assembly. The same were got changed as per the Tax Invoice Bill dated 13.08.2013 under extended warranty. It was pleaded that Glow Plug was changed on First Appeal No.819 of 2016 4 18.12.2013. He averred that fifth service was done by Joshi Auto Zone, Chandigarh, when the speedo meter was showing the reading of 40893 kilometers. Sixth service was done when the car had run for 51092 kilometers from Marco Ventures Pvt. Ltd. He averred that his car was giving trouble one way or the other and he never enjoyed the hassle free ride in his car from the very start. He averred that he purchased his car from reputed brand name TATA Motors after spending an amount of `6,50,000/-. He averred that Tata Motors gave him a car which was full of faults either in the engine or in the assembly as it would be evident from the record. He further averred that his car again started giving trouble in the month of June, 2015 and he took the car to Berkeley Tata Motors situated at Plot No.40, Industrial Area-II, Chandigarh for repairs. The supervisor of Berkeley workshop informed him that there is a process for changing the defective parts and his request was to be forwarded to Tata Motors Head Office. After getting the sanction from them only then they would look into the matter whether the defective parts are covered under the extended warranty or not? He averred that an online request was sent by the concerned person of Berkeley Tata Motors. After a short time he was informed that his request for changing the parts was declined by the system and reason for rejection was stated that 'previous claim was also stands rejected and replacement was not carried out as per manufacturer norms' so the new claim cannot be acceptable. He was informed that previously when he went for service at Macro Ventures Private Limited at Mohali his request for change of parts was also declined by Tata Motors. On receipt of this reply, he was surprised and shocked as he had always got his car First Appeal No.819 of 2016 5 serviced at proper time from the authorized dealers only. He tried to explain this fact to the supervisor that his car was under extended warranty given by the Tata Motors. On 18.12.2013, items No.5 and 10 were replaced by Joshi Auto Zone, Chandigarh, free of cost as his car was under extended warranty. He further tried to explain to the representative that if his car was not serviced as per the manufacturer norms then how the parts were replaced by Joshi Auto Zone and it would have then rejected too. Even after giving the explanation to the supervisor that his car was under extended warranty the defective parts as per the estimate given by the Berkeley Workshop were not replaced. He alleged that even after getting his car serviced from authorized dealers of Tata Motors his car never gave 100% defect free ride due to bad quality of material used and broke down now and then. The rejection of his request vide job card dated 25.07.2015 amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and alleged that he had been carrying out the service of his car from the Authorized Service Centres as per the owners manual. The Authorized Service Centres never gave any remarks about his failure of service not carried out as per manufacturer norms at any time as it would be evident from tax invoice bills of several services and repairs undertaken by him. He pleaded that opposite party No.3 was running away from its obligation and failed to honour the extended warranty given by opposite parties. He alleged that he is liable to get compensation for massive financial loss, injury, mental pain and harassment to the extent of `2,00,000/- alongwith `20,000/- as litigation expenses. He averred that his car started giving trouble from the very beginning First Appeal No.819 of 2016 6 when the car mileage was of even less than 10,000 kilometers and started having immediate repairs. If these repairs were not carried out at those times the same would have caused damage to the other parts of the engine. He would have required to shell out more money for its repairs if not carried out as per bills date. He pleaded that extended warranty undertaken by him within one year from the expiry of warranty of manufacturer warranty as per the advice of representative of the company. His extended warranty was to expire on 28.07.2015 as he had purchased his car from Hind Motors on 29.07.2011. He filed his consumer complaint in the District Forum and sought directions to be issued against opposite parties; to replace his car with a new one of the same Model, Brand or in the alternative refund the price of the car to him as his car was having manufacturing defect and required repairs in the engine as well as in the other parts of his car; to pay `2,00,000/- as compensation for having suffered, injury, mental pain and harassment alongwith `20,000/- as litigation costs alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their reply and took preliminary objections that the cars and the vehicles manufactured at its plants are thoroughly inspected for control system, quality checks and test drives before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorized dealers appointed on a 'principal to principal' basis for sale of cars and vehicles. It was averred that all dealer workshops are having dedicated helpline for attending to any breakdown and are providing 24 x 7 Toll Free helpline in order to provide assistance to the customers in distress situation. It stated First Appeal No.819 of 2016 7 that the present complaint filed by the complainant was an abuse of process of law. The complainant did not approach the District Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It was averred that as per clause No.1 of terms and conditions of warranty, the warranty was for 24 months from the date of sale of the car or 75000 kilometers, whichever occurs earlier. It was averred that the warranty in respect of the vehicle in question got already expired and he was not entitled for warranty benefits. A plea was taken that the complaint filed by the complainant was time barred as he had taken the delivery of his vehicle on 29.07.2011. It was averred that as per the complainant's allegations his car started giving problem to him in the beginning itself when he purchased it but he had filed his complaint in the month of July, 2015 after four years and even when its warranty period as well as his extended warranty period expired. The limitation for filing the complaint as per Section 24A of the Act is of two years. The present complaint is instituted after a gap of four years and it was not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. It has been averred that opposite parties provided warranty to the vehicle of the complainant for 24 months, which expired on 28.07.2013. He did not pay any consideration for extended warranty to the opposite parties. It was contended that the extended warranty is the product of United India Insurance Company and the complainant unnecessarily dragged the present opposite parties in his complaint. It was pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant was bad for non-impleading the Insurance Company namely, United India Insurance Company, which was a necessary party in the complaint. It was averred that no manufacturing defect was proved by the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 8 complainant nor any deficiency in service was there on its part. The allegations made in his complaint are baseless, frivolous and misconceived. It was pleaded that the vehicle of the complainant covered 60266 kilometers as on 20.08.2015, which would prove that his vehicle was roadworthy and did not suffer from any defect much less manufacturing defect. It was pleaded that vehicle purchased by the complainant was for commercial purpose as it would be evident that the same was used for Gujrat Ambuja Cements Limited as the said company used the vehicle for commercial activities. As per Section 2(1)(a) the present complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and denied all other averments made in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party No.3 filed its written reply through Balwinder Kumar, representative of opposite party No.3. In its reply, it took preliminary objections that the complainant did not come to the Forum with clean hands and filed a false and frivolous complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant did not operate his vehicle in accordance with the operating instructions given in 'owner's manual' and had not come for regular service at the correct time and kilometer intervals as recommended by the manufacturer. It was pleaded that the extended warranty as alleged by the complainant was not issued by it. It was pleaded that as per condition No.(h) of the extended warranty the vehicle must be operated in accordance with the operating instructions in the 'owner's manual' and must be regularly serviced at correct time and kilometers, at proper intervals as recommended by the manufacturer. Failure to comply with operating instructions or getting service of the Vehicle according to such First Appeal No.819 of 2016 9 recommendations would render the policy voidable. It was averred that the first service of the vehicle should be done within one month from the date of sale or within 1500 kilometer, whichever is earlier. It was pleaded that the complainant got serviced the vehicle after one month as it would be evident from the copy of the service history of his vehicle. It was further alleged that the complainant did not get the second service of his car within the time frame as per recommendation of the manufacturer which should have been done on 5500 kilometers or within six months from the date of sale, whichever is earlier. It again took the plea that the third service of the vehicle was also not done within the time frame as recommended by the manufacturer which should have been done on 10500 kilometers or within 12 months from the date of sale, whichever is earlier. It was averred that all these three services were not undertaken by him and took the plea that he had violated the service norms recommended by the manufacturer. It averred that the services which he took for his car were not undertaken as per the manufacturing schedule for the services provided to him in owner's manual. It was averred that there was a procedure for getting the repair under extended warranty. Whenever any complaint comes to opposite party No.3 a request is sent to Global Administration Services of Tata Motors for approval of the car under extended warranty. It was averred that after checking the service record of the vehicle the Global Administration Services rejected the claim and did not approve the claim as per norms and sent the disapproval report with its remarks. It was averred that the request of the complainant was rejected by the Global Administration Services which went through the service record of the vehicle and the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 10 same being important and mandatory must be carried out from authorized dealer and the required consumables parts would be replaced as recommended by the manufacturer to maintain the validity of extended warranty of policy. It was pleaded that if the services were not carried out as per the manufacturer recommendations the claims for replacement would be rejected and the same can be treated as being violation of the recommendation of manufacturer guidelines. It denied all the averments and took a plea that on 25.07.2015, the car was brought for only wear and tear complaints and upon the request of the complainant, it gave the estimate. It was pleaded that it was fault on the part of the complainant who did not carry his car for service as per norms prescribed in time as recommended in the guidelines of the manufacturer. It was pleaded that neither the car was purchased by the complainant from it nor the extended warranty was taken from it. It was pleaded that for the first time the complainant came to their workshop on 09.09.2014 after three years of purchase of his car and averred that the complaint was filed against it on false and frivolous grounds. He did not operate his vehicle in accordance with the operating system in the owner's manual and did not come for regular services of his car within the correct mileage and intervals as per the recommendation provided by the manufacturer and denied all other averments and pleaded that the complaint filed against it be dismissed with costs.
5. The District Forum allowed the parties to lead their evidence in support of their averments. The District Forum heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant as well as of First Appeal No.819 of 2016 11 opposite parties and partly allowed the complaint vide aforesaid order.
6. Aggrieved with impugned order the complainant/appellant has filed the present appeal in this Commission.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the District Forum which was called at the stage of admission.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that whenever the car was undertaken for repairs, the complainant got it repaired only from the authorized dealers of Tata Motors and there was no need to provide any report of authorized laboratory to prove manufacturing defect in the car. He argued that from the perusal of the bills it would be evident that major parts and engine assembly parts were replaced by the authorized dealers of Tata Motors during warranty period. He argued that a wrong plea has been raised by the opposite parties that the complainant did not get his car serviced as per the recommendation of the manufacturer. He argued that the complainant took all the precautions as per the owner's manual given to him at the time of purchasing the car. As per that manual he had got serviced his vehicle within the time and within the kilometers as mentioned in the schedules. He argued that it was a wrong plea raised by opposite party No.3 that the estimate for replacement or repair of the spare parts was given by it at his request. He pleaded that the manufacturer's warranty for 24 months plus extended warranty was for 48 months from the date of sale or for 1,50,000 kilometers, whichever is earlier. He also raised the point that opposite parties No.1 to 3 are denying that the complainant did First Appeal No.819 of 2016 12 not avail any extended warranty from it. He argued that from the perusal of history sheet Ex.OP-3/4 dated 10.09.2015 and as per the Tax Invoice dated 13.08.2013 Ex.C-9 and as per job card dated 13.08.2013 the spare parts were got changed during the extended warranty period. He argued that from the invoices placed on record, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 he was undertaking the services of his car at the appropriate time, as per owner's manual instructions provided by the manufacturer at the time of purchase of his car on 29.07.2011 as per Ex.C-1. He argued that the opposite parties have wrongly declined the repairs and replacement of the parts which were required to be replaced when he went for getting his car serviced from opposite party No.3. His request for replacement was not entertained and was flatly refused to replace on the plea that he violated the owner's manual instructions. He further argued that the order passed by the District Forum needs to be set aside as the same is contrary to the terms and conditions of extended warranty and wrongly directed the opposite parties to refund the warranty amount alongwith a meager cost of compensation in his favour.
9. On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 argued that as per history record the vehicle of the complainant was not serviced as per owner's manual instructions provided to him when he purchased his car on 29.07.2011. He argued that initially the warranty period was for 24 months or for 75000 kilometers, whichever is earlier from the date of sale. He argued that complainant came to their workshop for getting his vehicle parts replaced after the expiry of extended warranty period. As per Global Administration Services of the manufacturer, it looked into the service First Appeal No.819 of 2016 13 record of the vehicle of the complainant and rejected his request for replacement of parts on 25.07.2015 as per online request made by opposite party No.3. Learned counsel for opposite party No.1 & 2 stated that whenever there is a violation of the manual instructions for run of the vehicle, the most important part which is required to be looked into is whether the customer went through the manual of instructions and got his car serviced as per directions issued in the manual or not. He argued that from the information undertaken from the complainant's service record by Global Administration Services of Tata Motors it rejected the request placed by opposite party No.3 for replacement of parts of complainant's car. On receipt of rejection confirmation opposite party No.3 generated the estimates for replacement of parts. He further argued that the extended warranty is a product given by an Insurance Company and it has nothing to do with it and would not amount to as an undertaking on the parts by manufacturer to replace the part under extended warranty.
10. Counsel for opposite party No.3 argued that whenever a consumer or customer comes to their workshop for repairs, they send an online request to Global Administration Services of Tata Motors for sending their confirmation before changing parts in the car of a customer. As per the procedure, their workshop staff placed an online request with the Global Administration Services of Tata Motors which rejected the same and that information was passed over to the complainant. As such, its workshop do not have any role and the complainant wrongly impleaded it in his complaint. He argued that it was Joshi Auto Zone which gave the extended warranty to the complainant and the extended warranty was not First Appeal No.819 of 2016 14 provided by its workshop. He argued that if the complainant had any grievance he should have also impleaded Joshi Auto Zone as a necessary party in his complaint alongwith United India Insurance Company who issued him terms and conditions of the extended warranty and argued that the order passed by the District Forum needs to be set aside.
11. The major points to be decide in the appeal are (i) Whether the complainant has undertaken the services of his vehicle as per owner's manual of instructions? (ii) Whether the extended warranty of two years was to be provided by opposite parties No.1 & 2? (iii) Whether the manufacturer was required to replace the parts under the extended warranty and upto what time? (iv) Whether the car purchased by the complainant was having manufacturing defect or not?
12. In order to decide whether the complainant has got his car serviced as per the terms and conditions under manual of manufacturer's instructions or not? We have perused Ex.OP-3/4 which relates to service history of the vehicle. From this service history, the details of car history as recorded therein is as under:-
Sr.No. SH# Service Servicing Dealer Kms. Service Type Date
1. SH-Int-1-672JXKJ 31.08.2011 Hind Motors India 1128 First Free Service Ltd.
2. SH-Int-1-6GU0FJ8 01.11.2011 Hind Motors India 4561 Running Repairs Ltd.
3. SH-Int-1-752O44H 16.03.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 9948 Second Free Pvt. Ltd. Service
4. SH-Int-1-78MIMIE 02.04.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 10772 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
5. SH-Int-1-7DWVF7W 17.05.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 12943 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
6. SH-Int-1-7KGC9OS 04.07.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 15286 Warranty Pvt. Ltd.
7. SH-Int-1-7U8YL02 26.09.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 19409 Warranty Pvt. Ltd.
8. SH-Int-1- 06.10.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 19409 Warranty 7WBDWQP Pvt. Ltd.First Appeal No.819 of 2016 15
9. SH-Int-1-7WRTHCZ 11.10.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 20403 Third Free Service Pvt. Ltd.
10. SH-Int-1-82JJQ5P 27.11.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 22933 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
11. SH-Int-1-82LUTM6 27.11.2012 Joshi Auto Zone 22935 Upgrade Pvt. Ltd.
12. SH-Int-1-8FHYGVO 05.03.2013 Joshi Auto Zone 26863 Accident Pvt. Ltd.
13. SH-Int-1-8LPFGUX 18.04.2013 Joshi Auto Zone 28906 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
14. SH-Int-1-8N7E1SZ 30.04.2013 Macro Ventures 29497 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
15. SH-Int-1-8OVNXFV 18.05.2013 Joshi Auto Zone 30295 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
16. SH-Int-1-944KR9X 06.09.2013 Macro Ventures 36216 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
17. SH-Int-1-9DX08VW 19.11.2013 Joshi Auto Zone 39511 Break-down Pvt. Ltd.
18. SH-Int-1-9FT9K8B 02.12.2013 Macro Ventures 40105 Running Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
19. SH-Int-1-B3VX1Q1 26.12.2014 Macro Ventures 55674 AMC Repairs Pvt. Ltd.
20. SH-Int-1-CSA8HC9 09.06.2015 60192 Paid Service
21. SH-Int-1-D62XO5N 20.08.2015 RSA Motors Pvt. 60266 AMC Repairs Ltd.
13. As per free service coupons, we find that the complainant availed all the free services under these coupons. We find that whenever the service coupons are used, the company have a right to decline the service of vehicle under a particular free service period coupons. From the record we do not find any record of coupons tendered by the opposite parties in the District Forum record of services got done by the complainant under the free coupon services. In absence of free service coupon record, pertaining to free services undertaken by the complainant and also the records of running repairs, we are of the view that the same were withheld in order to justify, the rejection or replacement of parts as per request sent by Berkeley Motors on 15.07.2015 and thereafter on 25.07.2015. The opposite parties have tried to manipulate the record by giving the details of services in hand written mode on the last page of Ex.OP- 3/4.
First Appeal No.819 of 2016 16
14. In order to find out whether the extended warranty issued to the complainant on 27.08.2012 was valid upto 28.07.2015 or not? We have perused Ex.C-5, the details provided in it is as under:-
"Ex.-showroom Price The Policy is valid for 24 months from Expiration of Manufacturers Warranty.
This Policy will Expire on Completion of 48 months. Or at 150000 kms. from the date of Purchase, whichever is earlier.
Duration of Cover 24 Months Extended Warranty in addition to the Manufacturers Warranty Maximum Claim Liability Ex.-Showroom Price of Vehicle Ex.C-5 further states as under:-
"I Certify that to the best of my knowledge, this vehicle is mechanically sound and of roadworthy condition, and that any mechanical faults at this time of sale that fall within the scope of this Policy have been corrected and the Vehicle has had a predelivery inspection. Accordingly, this Policy is hereby issued on behalf of the Company."
Dealer's Stamp For Joshi Auto Zone Sd/- Dealer's Signature 27/08/2012 Policy Issue Date Owner's Signature"
15. From the above, it is clear that this policy was issued by Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of Tata Motors their relationship being a principal to principal (authorized dealer). From the perusal of First Appeal No.819 of 2016 17 Ex.C-9 pertaining to job card dated 13.08.2013 kilometers run by the car is shown as 35014. Service Request Type as Breakdown and the parts under Serial No. 1 to 4 were changed under extended warranty period.
16. Accordingly, we hold that extended warranty provided by Joshi Auto Zone vide Ex.C-5 was issued on behalf of Tata Motors also and, as such, on the request of its customers Tata Motors were required to repair or replace the parts of the vehicle of concerned customer whenever he/she brings his/her car for repair or replacement of original parts under the extended warranty period. From the above, it would be evident that point No.3 stands also covered.
17. From the above, it is apparently clear that the complainants suffered mental agony and harassment in order to get his car repaired from the authorized dealers as is evident from Service History. We find that he went to the authorized service station for getting his car repaired on 01.11.2011, 02.04.2012, 17.05.2012, 04.07.2012, 26.09.2012, 06.10.2012, 27.11.2012, 18.04.2013, 30.04.2013, 18.05.2013, 06.09.2013, 19.11.2013 and 02.12.2013 for running repairs in order to enable him to have a smooth ride in his vehicle as stands proved from the vehicle history that his car was having defective parts, which was sold to him.
18. In order to examine why he took his car for repairs to the Authorized Service Dealers of Tata Motors on the above mentioned dates on account of running repairs or breakdown service, we have cross checked this data with Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10. Under Ex.C-2, Ex.C- 5, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 which corroborate the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 18 version of the complainant that major parts of his vehicle were replaced as per details provided hereunder:-
(Ex.C-2) Job Card No.JC-JoshiA-CP-1112-013398, Dated : 15.03.2012 Sr.No. Part No./Job Code Particulars
1. 471070 Fuel Tank Unit Remove And Refit
2. 543051 Stalk Replacement on Combination Switch (Ex.C-6) Job Card No.JC-JoshiA-CP-1213-000047, Dated 02.04.2012
3. 570314119933 55219498 Valve EGR
4. 570314119926 59089432 Heat Exchanger
5. 141060 EGR Valve Replacement
6. 141080 EGR Cooler Removal and Refit (Ex.C-7) Job Card No.JC-JoshiA-CP-1213-001900, Dated 15.05.2012
7. 570314519914 59116536 Turbo Compressor
8. 141040 Turbo Charger Replacement Check (Ex.C-8) Job Card No.JC-JoshiA-CP-1213-007813, Dated 06.10.2012
9. 0055215424 Sealing Washer
10. 59063979 Injector
11. 074000 R/R Injection Nozzle (Each) (Ex.C-9) Job Card No.JC-JoshiA-CP-1314-003811, Dated 13.08.2013
12. 287454209922 Driver_Information_System_Low_End_With N
13. 287183400153 Assy Expansino Valve (TXV) BEHR
14. 551045 Remove-Refit/Replace Driver Information System
15. 681000 R/R Dash Board Assy.
16. G570315189901 Glow Plug
17. 1510101 Glow Plug Renew Each In order to have a trouble free ride he had visited the workshops of authorized dealers of Tata Motors and major parts of his car were replaced under warranty or under extended warranty.
The above data would clearly establish that the vehicle sold to the First Appeal No.819 of 2016 19 complainant was a defective vehicle. Thus, there was no necessity to get a report from authorized laboratory to establish that the vehicle sold to the complainant was having any manufacturing defect. The arguments raised by the counsel for the opposite parties that no laboratory report is there to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect are not tenable. The history sheet which has been placed on record by opposite party No.3 vide Ex.OP-3/4 clearly established that the complainant suffered harassment for getting his vehicle repaired for continuous defects, which required him to visit the authorized workshop of Tata Motors frequently; sometimes in a span of 15 to 20 days; sometimes 1½ to 2 months or sometimes 3 to 6 months regularly.
19. We find that the opposite parties have tried to mislead the Consumer Fora by affixing on last page of Ex.OP-3/4 a hand written version of services undertaken by the complainant in order to deprive him the benefit of extended warranty which was given to him by them.
20. Under the above circumstances, we do not have any hesitation to hold that the vehicle sold to the complainant was a defective vehicle and it required continuous repairs.
21. Sequel to the above, we are of the opinion that the District Forum wrongly issued directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of extended warranty to the complainant.
22. Accordingly, we feel that the order passed by the District Forum needs to be modified as it did not go into the details of defects which occurred in the vehicle of the complainant.
23. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified. It is an First Appeal No.819 of 2016 20 admitted fact of opposite parties in their reply filed before District Forum that the vehicle of the complainant is road worthy and did not suffer from any defect much less manufacturing defect. In order to meet ends of justice, we direct opposite parties No.1 & 2 to replace the defective parts and also to provide him further period of warranty upto 1,50,000 kilometers, free of costs, due to the fact that vehicle sold to the complainant, as per vehicle history Ex.OP-3/4, was a defective vehicle. They are further directed to pay compensation amounting to `35,000/- instead of `10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony alongwith `20,000/- as litigation expenses.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May, 16, 2017 parmod