State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Tata Motors Limited vs Sri Goutam Ghose & Anr. on 30 April, 2013
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND
FLOOR)
31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE
KOLKATA 700 027
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/65/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 30.12.2011 of Consumer Case No. 92/2011 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit I )
Date of Filing : 15.02.2012 Date of Final Order : 30.04.2013
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
M/S. TATA MOTORS LIMITED,
Apeejay House, 5th
Floor, Block C,
15, Park Street, Kolkata 700 016.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1. SRI GOUTAM GHOSE,
Residing at Block V,
Flat No. 50, 28/1A, Gariahat Road,
Kolkata 700 029.
PROFORMA RESPONDENT :
2. M/S. K. B. MOTORS PRIVATE
LIMITED,
7A, Rameshwar
Shaw Road,
Kolkata 700 014.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Sri S. Coari.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Asutosh Das,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Prasanta Banerjee,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
S. COARI, MEMBER.
The present appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dated 30.12.2011 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit I in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 92/2011 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint ex parte against the O.Ps with cost along with direction upon the O.Ps to replace the defective car of the Complainant by a new defect free car and further directed the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Complainant Respondents case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that, the Complainant purchased one Punto Emotion Pack Hatch Back Car from O.P. No. 2, dealer for a consideration of Rs.6,80,239/- and O.P. No. 1 is the manufacturer. According to the Complainant the vehicle was purchased on 29.07.2010 and as the vehicle developed a number of problems the Complainant had to lodge complaint on 07.10.2010 regarding rusting problem of the vehicle and some other ancillary problems which cropped up from day-to-day use of the vehicle. The O.P. No. 2 wanted to repair and replace the some portion of the vehicle in question but, according to the Complainant, the defect was of a manufacturing defect the Complainant did not agree to it and asked for replacement of the vehicle.
As the O.Ps did not agree to such proposal of the Complainant for replacing of the vehicle, the Complainant instituted the consumer complaint for proper redressal.
The O.Ps did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and contest the case and the Ld. District Forum dispose of the petition of complaint ex parte against the O.Ps with the observations that the O.Ps were deficient in service as claimed by the Complainant and that the Complainant was entitled to replacement of the vehicle in question and accordingly, disposed of the case in favour of the Complainant as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the complaint case in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Case laws referred on behalf of the Appellant Tata Motors Limited :
(1) (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 487 Bihar State Housing Board and Others vs. Prio Ranjan Roy. (2) 1997 (1) CPR 77 Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Kirit P. Doshi.
At the time of hearing the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Complainant has submitted before us that Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the pros and cons of the respective parties cases and as such has arrived at a just and proper decision which is very much sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent when it is an admitted position that since after purchasing of the vehicle for a considerable amount of money the Complainant was experiencing constant defect in the day-to-day running of the vehicle in question. On all such occasions the Complainant approached the dealer for mending the defects which in the opinion of the Complainant was of manufacturing defect, but for reasons best known to the O.Ps the O.Ps were not inclined to replace the vehicle and went on killing time with the proposal that the defects can easily be mended by minor repairs etc. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent a customer after investing such a huge amount of money should not be put under distress by a motor company with the fake assurance that as and when required the defects will be mended when on the face of the record it was apparent that the defect was of manufacturing one and the O.P. Appellant was bound to replace the vehicle in question.
While concluding his submission the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted before us that in spite of receipt of notice the O.Ps did not care to appear and contest the case before the Ld. District Forum and finding no alternative after proper appreciation of the materials on record the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order which should be confirmed. The Appellant O.Ps having refused the replace the vehicle in question has certainly committed gross negligence and deficiency in service which also tantamounted to unfair trade practice and as such question of interfering the impugned judgement does not arise at all which should be confirmed.
We have duly considered the submission so put forward on behalf the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and different decisions cited on behalf of the Appellant and find that in this case the Complainant Respondent has put forward a case to the effect that since after purchase of the vehicle the Complainant experienced constant trouble in day-to-day use of the vehicle in question and on all such occasions the Complainant approached the O.P. dealer for replacing of the vehicle in question but the O.Ps did not care to consider such requestions on the part of the Complainant and hence the present case. Though the O.Ps did not appear and contest the case before the Ld. District Forum but from the contents of the memorandum of appeal we understand that the Appellant O.Ps has tried to put up a case to the effect that in the absence of an expert opinion so far as it relates to manufacturing defect question of replacing of the vehicle does not arise at all and that within a very short span the vehicle in question being attended in the workshop of the dealer due to the accident caused in the vehicle in question clearly indicate that there was absolutely no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, negligent use of the vehicle the same met with accident on several occasions which were duly attended in the workshop of O.P. No. 2 and damages were duly attended and mended, question of replacement of vehicle does not arise at all and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant the Job Cards (Annexure E) clearly indicate that on 28.03.2011, 12.08.2010, 30.05.2011, 28.11.2011, 03.12.2011, 18.08.2010 and 21.09.2011 the vehicle was attended in the workshop of O.P. NO. 2 on the ground of accident and that on all occasions the vehicle was duly attended and repairs were effected. While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate has submitted that when admittedly the vehicle had to be attended a number of times on the ground of its sustaining damages due to accident, question of proper handling of the vehicle raises a serious doubt. So far as it relates to manufacturing defect we also found substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant. According to him, without an inspection and opinion by expert the point of manufacturing defect cannot be properly adjudicated in this case. Admittedly, there is no expert opinion on the point of manufacturing defect. From the analysis of the materials on record, we are of considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum was not justified in upholding the case of the Complainant Respondent when, admittedly, within a very short span of time the vehicle in question met with accident a number of times and that when it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect, in our opinion the Ld. District Forum was not justified in passing the order of replacement of the vehicle in question.
Similarly, we are unable to accept the proposition that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the O.Ps.
Having considered the present appeal in the light of above discussion we find merit in the present appeal and the same should be allowed.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, ordered that the appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is set aside. Consequently, the petition of complaint stands dismissed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT