AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm, Vsm (Retd.) Member
The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 2012, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was dismissed.
There was a delay of 277 days in filing the present Appeal. For the reason stated in IA/19093/2018, the delay is condoned.
For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present Appeal being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. “Mohd. Akram Choudhary” is referred to as the Complainant. While Chambal Motors Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. are referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1, 2 & 3 respectively in this matter.
Brief facts of the case as per the Complainant are that the Complainant purchased a Tata Safai GX7 motor vehicle Regn No. RJ-17-UA-1586 from Opposite Party No. 1 on 30.06.2010, for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,22,414. The new vehicle, which ought to be defect free had two-year and 75000 km warranty. However, it soon exhibited problems and performing like an old vehicle. Noticing this, the Complainant issued initial to the Respondent in wiring. When the vehicle was taken to OP No. 1 for inspection, Rs.9230 was collected from him. Subsequently, he paid Rs. 1048 on 11.04.2011, Rs. 600 on 13.07.2011, Rs. 2310 on 28.07.2011, Rs. 964 on 16.08.2011, Rs. 10667 on 18.10.2011, Rs.241 on 25.10.2011, Rs. 626 on 14.02.2012, and Rs. 1907 on 30.04.2012. The Complainant believed that the vehicle was under a two-year warranty, during which any manufacturing defects should have been repaired by the Opposite Parties without charge.
The situation worsened when cracks started appearing in the chassis on 28.06.2012. Upon inspection, it was revealed that the wiring, suspension and steering of the motor needed replacement. Within six months, both the engine and chassis significantly deteriorated due to manufacturing faults, making the quality of the vehicle questionable and irreparable. He thus asserted entitlement to a new vehicle from the OPs due to these defects. Being aggrieved due failure of the Opposite Parties to take any reasonable remedial actions, the Complainant was aggrieved and filed a consumer complaint before the learned State Commission seeking the following reliefs:
“That the manufactured defect motor its value Rs.10,22,141 along with registration insurance sold by the Respondents to the Complainant committed fault and therefore the respondent may be directed to refund/pay the amount/rupees received against the said motor i.e. Rs.10,22,141 along with 20% interest i.e. Amount Rs.5,00,000 to the complainant. Or respondent may be directed in replace the motor, Tata Safai X7 Gx7 Registration No.RJ 17 UA 1586 sold to the complainant and handed over new defect less motor to the Complainant.
The respondent may be directed to pay the harassment/damages amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental and social harassment to the Complainant caused by the act of the respondent.
That the above said motor purchased by the Complainant to do his marble business from one town to another town but due to repeatedly fault in the above said motor the complainant suffered use loss in his business and for compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and compensation amount for his family Rs.2,50,000/- directed the respondents to pay the complainant.
That the amount received by the respondents for maintenance amount for servicing the defective vehicle form the complainant which is mentioned at para 2 of the complaint may be directed to refund.”
(Extracted from translated copy)
In response, OP No. 1, the authorized seller of the said car, vehemently refuted all allegations. As per OP No. 1, the assertions of the Complaint are entirely false and there are no manufacturing defects and there is no substantial evidence to support such claim, especially considering the fact that he had already driven 47658 KM as of 14.06.2012, making it clear that the warranty had expired. Further, OP No. 2 & 3, in their reply corroborated OP No. 1.
The learned State Commission dismissed the complaint with the following Order: -
“First of all the statement of the complainant they consider that dated 04.01.2011 to 19.05.2012 in between when he went with his Motor at the workshop then even on the warranty period the amount have been taken from him. Considered this facts I found that this statement of the complainant is totally baseless and biased because during the regular service of the motor while filter etc. and washing charges are taken and it is not under the warranty. The bills filed by the complainant it is clear that dated 11.04.2011 some parts replaced under the warranty but the charge received for washing. In the same way dated 28.02.2011, charges has taken for replace of Bulb, arm, will element dated 28.07.2010 engine was distal water etc. charge had received. Dated 16.08.2011 vacuum modulator filer value of Rs. 29886.96 replaced under the warranty. Raised while filter charges taken/ received in the same way the bills dated 11.10.2011 it deem that the motor made accident because assembly RR Bump Since two hook and hole amount mentioned have been received from the Bima Company. Raised for the work in which Blub Light and other parts have been replaced. In the same way dated 24.10.2011 the amount which is received in that maximum work had done under the warranty. In the same circumstances dated 19.05.2012 bill it is also deemed that the service/ work done under the warranty was free and on this point there is no case' of the complainant is made out. In the bill dated 19.05.2012 it deem that on that day chasis framed had checked and it kept on observation and no amount received from the complainant and on that day absorber, replaced under the warranty. Till dated 19.05.2012 this .motor had already, run / plied 46774 Km and from this facts no any engine and staring defect proved in the motor. No any manufacturing defect proved in the engine from the facts of any job code. No any evidence of creak of chasis framed.
Thus considering the entire evidence it deem that when any defect came/fault came in the motor then it shown to the respondent No. 1 under the warranty and it cure under the warranty. The amount which is received from the complainant it is related to change of while filter there is no evidence of manufacturing defect in the motor engine and no any facts available on record in respect of creak of chasis framed. The motor is still using in the service and daily this vehicle /motor is plying about 70 km. Thus no facts available in respect of manufacturing defect. So this complaint is liable to be rejected and is rejected.”
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Complainant filed this present Appeal no. 1846 of 2018 with the following prayer:
a.Allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2017 passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Circuit Bench Kota Rajasthan in Complaint No. 7 of 2012.
b. Pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
In the appeal, the Appellant mainly highlighted that the State Commission failed to recognize the evidence presented in the invoice dated 28.06.2012 issued by Respondent No.1, which clearly indicated that significant components of the vehicle, such as the chassis, engine, steering, wiring harness, front suspension, power steering, and chassis frame assembly, were replaced by them. This, according to the Appellant, unequivocally proved a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The Appellant contested that the State Commission erroneously presumed that the vehicle met with an accident because of assembly RR Bump and whole amount received from the insurance company. He contended that this presumption was unfounded and not supported by facts. He emphasized that the State Commission failed to acknowledge that the vehicle's warranty period was 2 years and 75000 KM. According to the Appellant, as on 19.05.2012, the vehicle had only covered 45774 KMs. Given this low mileage, the presence of faults in significant components like the chassis, engine, and steering clearly indicated a deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
Upon the notice on the memo of Appeal, the Respondents / Opposite Parties have not filed any reply to the present Appeal.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant in his arguments comprehensively reiterated the grounds of appeal and prayed for setting aside of the impugned order passed by learned State Commission.
The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 argued that the Appellant was negligent and careless in maintaining the vehicle right from the beginning. He consistently delayed or failed to avail the free services as per the schedule. For instance, the vehicle's first free service was due at 1000 kms, but the Appellant brought it after 2532 KM. Similarly, the second free service was supposed to be at 5000 KM, but he did not avail it. The vehicle was finally brought for its third free service after covering 14,109 KM. No complaints were made by the Appellant alleging any manufacturing defects during these service visits. He further asserted that after an accident, the warranty of the vehicle ceases. Despite this, the Respondent repaired the vehicle after the accident, and did not charge for parts covered under the warranty. He emphasized that the Appellant failed to lead any expert opinion demonstrating a manufacturing defect or any recurring defect in the vehicle. In any case, the Respondent being a dealer, could not be held liable for manufacturing defects as per the legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further asserted that while undertaking free services, only labour charges are waived; all other costs for consumables and parts such as oil filters, engine oil, etc are to be paid by the owner. He demonstrated that no labour charges were applied for services under warranty, as indicated in invoices.
The counsel for Respondent No. 2 and 3 argued that the Appellant had driven the vehicle for an extensive period, covering 55,936 km within two years and five months of its purchase. At no stage, the Appellant raised any manufacturing defect. Even after the warranty expired on 29.06.2012 and the vehicle was collected from the workshop on 14.07.2012, no such complaint was made. According to the counsel, the Appellant's failure to give the vehicle for its scheduled servicing at authorized workshops violated the terms and conditions specified in the service operator book, leading to the automatic cancellation of the vehicle's warranty. He further stressed upon stringent quality checks and testing protocols followed by Respondent No. 2 before launching any vehicle in the market. The particular model in question was a well-established product since its launch in 1998 and had undergone extensive quality control checks. Respondent No. 2 was certified with ISO/TS 16949, a standard emphasizing defect prevention and waste reduction in the automotive industry supply chain and production. He specifically pointed that the said vehicle had met with an accident after covering 29,653 KM, leading to repairs. According to the warranty terms (Clause 7), repairs post-accident were not free of cost. However, Respondent No. 2, as an act of goodwill, replaced the engine under warranty. This was concealed by the Appellant from the State Commission. He contended that the Appellant failed to comply with Section 13(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which required them to request the State Commission to send the vehicle for examination by an independent agency with technical expertise to determine whether the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. The absence of this essential step completely undermined any scope for the Appellant's claim of a manufacturing defect. He placed reliance upon the following judgments to support his arguments: -
a) Gulab Vs Force Motors Limited and Anr (RP 70 of 2010).
b) Jai Malhotra Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Ors III (2002) CPJ 95 (NC)
c) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Hasmukh Laxmichand (RP No. 827/ 2004)
d) Classic Automobiles Vs LN Mishra & Ors; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).
e) Telco Vs Bachchi Rm Dangwal &Anr (2009) CTJ 506 (CP NCDRC)
f) Scooter India Ltd Vs Manjulaben Kirthibhai and Ors.; III (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).
g) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Sushil Kumar Gangotra and Anr.
h) Maruti Udyog Vs Nagender Prasad Sinha &Anr II (2009) CPJ (NC)
We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and the and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties.
The primary issue for determination in the case revolves around the Appellant's claim of a manufacturing defect in the Tata Safai GX7 motor vehicle he purchased. The Appellant made several allegations in respect of the quality of the vehicle, the deterioration it suffered in a short time, the inconvenience he had, the amounts he paid towards repair etc. As per him, various components of the vehicle, including the chassis, engine and wiring, were faulty and required multiple repairs and these indicate of manufacturing defect and therefore sought a replacement vehicle from the Respondents. On the other hand, Respondents asserted that the vehicle was properly inspected, and was subjected to stringent quality control measures, including pre-delivery inspection and post-approval by regulatory authorities before it was sold. The Appellant failed to adhere to the warranty terms by not following the specified free servicing schedules within stipulated time. They contend that the warranty ceases after the vehicle had met with an accident and the subsequent repairs in respect of the accident are not covered under warranty. The Respondents asserted that the Appellant failed to provide any expert opinion or substantial evidence to prove manufacturing defect, if any, and they challenged the Appellant's compliance with legal obligations such as requesting for independent examination of the vehicle as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The contentions of the Complainant that from 04.01.2011 to 19.05.2012 he visited the workshop of OPs and, even when the vehicle was under warranty period, he was charged for servicing. However, it is an established position that, during the said service the charges paid by the Complainant was towards consumables which were replaced and washing charges. These are clearly not under warranty. The bills filed by the Complainant himself make it clear that on 11.04.2011 some parts were replaced under warranty but the charges received was for washing. Also, on 28.02.2011, charges were levied towards replacement of bulb, arm etc. On 28.07.2010 the engine oil, distilled water etc were changed. On 16.08.2011 vacuum modulator filter value of Rs.29886.96 replaced under the warranty, while filter charges were paid. Further, on 11.10.2011 it was considered that the vehicle had met with an accident because of assembly RR Bump and whole amount have been received from the Insurer. Similarly, on 24.10.2011 and on 19.05.2012 significant work was done under warranty. The vehicle had already completed 46774 KM by 19.05.2012. Further, at no stage, the Appellant reasonably established that there was any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. In any case, necessary action to establish ‘manufacturing defect’, if any, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act of 1986 has not been complied with.
These aspects make it clear that there was neither any manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor any deficiency in service by the Respondents. Based on the above discussion and on careful perusal of material on record, no case is made out in the present Appeal and the Appeal No. 1846 of 2018 is therefore dismissed for being devoid of merit.
There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.