Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President; Thiru
R.N. Manickam & Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Members
T. NAGARAJU—Complainant
versus
TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
O.P. No. 349 of 1993—Decided on 17.1.1994
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Tr. V. Gopinath, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties :Tr. K.V. Rajan, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2 (1) (d) (i) - Consumer - Car purchased by complainant in his personal capacity - Fact that complainant may be using car for travelling in connection with his business will not render purchase as one for commercial purpose Complainant is therefore a consumer. (Para 5)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2 (1) (f) - Defects - Purchase of new Tata Estate car - Various defects pointed out which have been repeatedly attended to with little success are defects u/s. 2 (1) (f) - Sale of an unmerchantable vehicle full of innumerable defects - Liability of manufacturer and dealer - Order of refund of full price amount with repair charges paid - Award of Rs. 50,000/towards mental pain and agony - Complainant not entitled to any interest on price amount.
Held: This Tata Estate car at the value of Rs. 4,05,956/- is a new one and is advertised in the market as giving maximum driving pleasure and comfort. The price level is well above the level of the ordinary car. A purchaser of this car is therefore entitled to expect the best possible comfort and performance. But these expectations are belied as the car had to go to the third Opposite Party repeatedly for carrying out repairs in almost all parts and the conclusion is irresistible that the vehicle sold to the complainant is a defective one and the defects rendered the car unmerchantable. This is therefore a case of sale of an unmerchantable car full of innumerable defects for which the responsibility lies on the Opposite Parties who are the manufacturer and the dealer. (Para 10)
Result: Complaint allowed accordingly.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the car has been purchased in personal capacity, the fact that the purchaser may be using the car for travelling in connection with his business will not render the purchase as one for commercial purpose.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President:—This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The complainant has purchased a Tata Estate Model Automobile manufactured by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 from the third Opposite Party which is the authorised dealer at Madras for a sum of Rs. 4,05,956/-. We took delivery of the vehicle on 3.9.92. Within a few days the complainant noticed several defects and they were brought to the notice of the third Opposite Party. The vehicle was left with the third Opposite Party for the first service on 28.9.92 with the following defects. The tyres had become frayed and worn out due to improper alignment. The suspension was defective and the ball joints were not functioning properly. There was humming sound from the propellar shaft and there was vibration in the differential. The servicing assembly was defective as there was a sense of wobbling during driving and noise emanated from it. The window glasses were scratched. There was sweating in the headlight domes. The engine oil consumption was abnormally high. The fuel consumption was also high. There was rattling noise from all the doors. The A/c was not functioning. The wipers were not functioning properly. The ignition switch was imperfect due to which this has starting problem. All the locks in the car were defective. But none of these defects were satisfactorily rectified. The vehicle was sent for second service on 2.12.92. The defects were again brought to the notice of the third Opposite Party, but they remained unrectified. The complainant wrote to the third Opposite Party and also to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. He has also sent lawyer’s notice. He requested Mr. B.B. Seshadri to inspect the vehicle and he has given his report on 10.3.93. None of the defects initially noted have been rectified. The vehicle supplied to him suffers from basic manufacturing defects. The complainant has therefore come forward with this claim for refund of the price or in the alternative to replace the defective vehicle with a new one, for interest on the amounts paid from the date of payment till delivery, for insurnace and vehicle tax payment. He has also claimed interest on the price amount and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh.
3. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 in their counter denied the allegations and adopted, in other respects, the counter statement filed by the third Opposite Party.
4. The third Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer that he has purchased this vehicle for the purpose of his business. It is admitted that the vehicle was delivered on 3.9.92. It is contended that the interest for the period upto 3.9.92 has been paid. The vehicle was brought for first service on25.9.92 at k.m. 4327. It was checked for rear left hand side power window switch which was fixed properly, the rear wiper was corrected as the electrical connection was loose, the inner spray jet of the front windshield was adjusted, engine oil consumption was found to be one litre for 1,500 k.m. and the vehicle was delivered on 28.9.92. The glass panes for the left and right hand doors were replaced; during the third service so also the centre joint bed and the ignition switch after the spares were received from the manufacturers. It came for second service on 19.9.92. This Opposite Party checked the head light assembly to replace the relay system. The complaint about excessive wear of the tyre was referred to the manufacturers who after inspection stated that in radial type tyre the inner edge wear was normal. The rear brake adjustment was corrected. For complaint of door rattling, the door mountings were tightened and grease applied. Wobbling of steering, wheel balancing was done. Defective suspension all the bolts and nuts were checked. The tinkering job was done for the bent on the right hand side door portion due to accident. Air Condition was charged. For the noise from the rea
