National Consumer Disputes Redressal
R.C. Grover vs Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. on 27 May, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3362 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 01/07/2010 in Appeal No. 152/2008 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. R.C. GROVER R/o.- II-H-15, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi - 110024 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. TATA MOTORS LTD. & ANR. Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street New Delhi Delhi 2. M/S. CONCORDE MOTORS LIMITED 9/8, Dairy Circle, Opposite Christ College, Hosur Road Banglore - 560 029 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate
Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocate
Ms. Aakarshan Sahay, Advocate
Ms. Devina Arora, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vipin Sehgal, Advocate
Dated : 27 May 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. FA-08/152 - R.C. Grover Vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased Tata Indica Car DL-3CS-3071 on 24.3.2001 from OP No. 4/Respondent No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. During warranty period, car was not functioning satisfactory and was taken to OP No. 4/Workshop every month, in initial months and later on twice a month. It was further submitted that car had inherent problems mentioned in the complaint which could not be rectified. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that car sold to the complainant is of the highest quality and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided by the manufacturer. Car was subjected to detailed examination after manufacture and pre-delivery to the complainant. It was further submitted that complainant took delivery of car after being satisfied about the quality and performance. It was further submitted that complainant did not point out inherent defects in the vehicle, but normal wear and tear of the vehicle caused some problems which were rectified and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to replace old car with new car under fresh warranty and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OPs was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and set aside direction of replacement by new car, but affirmed other directions against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission has wrongly observed that vehicle has been sold by complainant and vehicle is still in possession of complainant and further submitted that on account of manufacturing defects, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of record reveals that vehicle was not sold by petitioner to any other person but Petitioner changed his state, so, different numbers were given and on account of this, learned State Commission erroneously observed that vehicle had been sold by complainant during pendency of complaint. In such circumstances, aforesaid observation made by State Commission regarding sale of vehicle by complainant is wrong.
6. As far manufacturing defects in the vehicle are concerned, complainant has not placed any expert opinion to prove that purchased vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defects. Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that complainant himself is mechanical engineer; so, no expert opinion was required. I do not agree with this submission, firstly, a mechanical engineer cannot be treated automobile expert engineer and secondly, a person himself cannot be a judge of his own case. In the absence of proof of manufacturing defect (defects which cannot be removed by any workshop except by the manufacturer himself) complainant was not entitled to replacement of vehicle by new vehicle. Learned State Commission while allowing appeal partly rightly observed as under:
"12. A bare perusal of the impugned order it is abundantly clear that the observations made by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order are not based on any cogent evidence and the findings recorded appear to have been founded on the surmises and assumptions. Manufacturing defects as pointed out by the respondent before the Forum are not substantiated by any expert evidence. It is incumbent upon the complainant to produce some expert evidence with regard to the alleged inherent defects in the manufacturing of the car but in this case nothing of this sort of evidence is available on the record for the District forum to observe that the "Alternator was still not functioning properly; or that, the Electrical Circuit was malfunctioning; or that, the capacity of the Battery was on lower side; or that, the Air Conditioner was not working properly; or that, the Breaks (Brakes) were of defective design and not working properly inspite of servicing; or that, the vehicle has starting problems, Steering Wheel Column required to be straightened and Fuel Gauge was showing erroneous reading and the alignment was bad when the car was running beyond sixty kilometers or the Headlights and Gear System were malfunctioning". It appears that these observations have been made in impugned order on the basis or bald statement of the complainant without any corroborative evidence. We, therefore, find the impugned order to the extent of replacement of the vehicle with a new car of present model without any extra cost under fresh warranty etc is quite harsh and unjustified.
7. Perusal of Statement - I attached with letter dated 18.2.2002 sent by complainant to TELCO reveals that car was taken to OP workshop on 5.5.2001 for first free service and again on 28.5.2001 on account of noise from engine. This statement further reveals that it was again taken to workshop on 20.6.2001 on account of noise from engine and problem regarding fuel gauge and brakes and again on 28.6.2001 on account of fuel gauge and, brakes, gear box, vehicle alignment, steering wheel columns, etc. Perusal of this statement reveals that there was noise from engine on two occasions, but later on it stood rectified and after service complainant must have taken delivery of vehicle after fully satisfied with removal of all defects; in such circumstances, there could not have been assumption of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
8. In the aforesaid statement it has been shown that vehicle was taken to OP's workshop on 22.9.2001 and 30.9.2001 for repairs which apparently seems not correct as vehicle was taken to Auto Links workshop on 11.9.2001. Once vehicle had been taken to Auto Links workshop on 11.9.2001 for rectification of defects, there was no occasion to take again vehicle to OP Concorde workshop on 22.9.2001 and 30.9.2001 for removal of any defect. It appears that it was taken to Concorde Workshop only for replacement of battery which was replaced by Concorde workshop. Later on, on 21.12.2001 and 7.2.2002 vehicle was taken to Auto Links workshop and in letter dated 18.2.2002 he has appreciated services of Auto Links workshop.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on (2010) 5 SCC 513 - V. Krishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital in which it was held that expert opinion is required only when a case is complicated enough warranting expert opinion, or facts of a case are such that Forum cannot resolve an issue without expert's assistance. I agree with the law laid down in aforesaid case, but this case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case because in the case in hand merely by Statement - I attached with letter, it cannot be found that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle and in such circumstances, expert opinion was necessary to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle was having manufacturing defects. He has also placed reliance on IV (2007) CPJ I (NC) - Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd. Vs. Daimlerchrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. in which replacement of purchased luxury Mercedes Benz vehicle was ordered as various defects noticed within three months from purchase of vehicle including overheating of center hump. In the case in hand, complainant purchased Tata India and perusal of Statement - I does not reveal that it was taken to workshop for removal of number of defects within period of three months, but it appears that it was taken for free services and at that time some problems were pointed out which were rectified. He has also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in II (2008) CPJ 308 (NC) - Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar Vs. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Anr. in which refund of price was allowed as vehicle was found defective from day one onwards whereas, in the case in hand, I do not observe any major defect in the vehicle but it appears that routine complaints were made which were rectified and vehicle is running since last 14 years.
10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC) - Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & anr. in which it was observed that merely because car in question brought repeatedly to the service station for minor repairs, it cannot be termed as manufacturing defect. Learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on (2006) 4 SCC 644 - Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. in which it was observed that replacement of only defective part of the vehicle within warranty period is required and Hon'ble Apex Court along with replacement of clutch assembly allowed consolidated fund of Rs.50,000/- as cost of travel and inconvenience. In the case in hand as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, learned District Forum committed error in allowing replacement of vehicle and learned State Commission rightly set aside that direction and upheld grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER