Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Problems in M/S. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & ... vs Niravbhai K Purohit on 17 July, 2017Matching Fragments
Dated : 17 Jul 2017 ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 5.2.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 1081 of 2008 by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the revision petition are that the Complainant, Mr. Niravbhai K. Purohit, purchased Tata Indigo LX II motor car on 23.1.2007 from OP 1/M/s Tata Motors Ltd. It was alleged that soon after purchase and after run for the distance of 201 kms., there was a problem of fuel meter, noise in door of the car. The car was sent to OP 2-Jay Ganesh Auto Center for repair on 27.1.2007. Again, there was problem of gear shifting and reverse light. The car was sent on 31.3.2007 to OP 2. After repair, car was delivered to 07.3.2007 and it was stated to OP 2 about the problem in fuel meter and odometer (speed), which had to be changed along with fuel tank unit. On 19.3.2007, the complainant was travelling to Vadodara by his car. The car stopped in midway, which was taken to service center wherein the repair of the timing belt of motor car and injection nozzle were changed. On 18.4.2007, the engine oil filter, fuel filter, ailment etc. were changed but there was no total improvement.
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OPs preferred first appeal before Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmadabad (herein after referred as 'the State Commission'). The State commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the defect was not ordinary because the problem was persisting despite service and replacement of vital parts. The State Commission also observed that within four days from the date of purchase, the car was sent for repairs and within four months, the car was repaired 7 to 8 times.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aditya Narain vehemently argued that the District Forum and the State Commission have ignored the warranty clause. There were no inherent mechanical defects in the car. Learned counsel further submitted that the problems alleged by the complainant were duly carried out by the dealer. The defects cannot be termed as manufacturing defects. The car was duly attended at the workshop by the dealer to the fullest satisfaction of the complainant. Due to negligence of complainant himself by using adulterated fuel, the vehicle developed alleged defects. Regarding the manufacturing defects, learned counsel relied upon the judgments in Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Hasmukh Lakshmichand & Anr. III (2009) CPJ 229 (NC) and Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC). The counsel further submitted that the fora below have failed to follow up the legal mandatory procedure of referring the vehicle to independent expert agency in terms of Section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the fora below has clearly overlooked and ignored the terms of the warranty. The counsel submitted that the affidavit and cross examination of Mr. Deepak Tiwari was not considered and it was wrongly interpreted, who was an engineer (B.E. Mechanical). The complainant abandoned the vehicle and did not take the delivery after repairs. The vehicle was extensively used, had covered 17301 kms. between 23.1.2007 to 14.5.2007, which means the vehicle ran on an average 156 kms per day. Therefore, the manufacturing defect would be a defect without which the vehicle cannot function.
8. The rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant are that the car started problems after two days of purchase. It has visited the workshop of the dealer for 7-8 times within a span of six months. On 19.3.2007, the car had major problems. It was stopped on the highway while going on a tour out of Gujarat. During second service also, car had many problems and regarding necessary repairs, the complainant informed OP 2 that it had problem of gear shifting, A/c air flow problem, clutch chattering problem, steering wheel vibration problem, tyre balancing and alignment problem, as mentioned in the complaint (at page 162). Due to such huge repairs, the complainant was not willing to take that car from the custody of OP No.2. Hence, since 14.5.2007, the car was in the custody of OP 2. The complainant abandoned the case because of having manufacturing defects since beginning. Hence, he sought the replacement of vehicle with brand new one.