Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President &
Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member
SRIDHAR BARIK—Complainant
versus
CHAIRMAN, TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.—Opposite Parties
Case No. 64 of 1995—Decided on 28.2.2003
For the Complainant :M/s. S. Das and Associates, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 :M/s. D.P. Dhal and Associates, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No. 3 :Miss S.L. Patanaik, Advocate.
During the warranty period, the supplier of the vehicle should be responsible for replacing defective parts, not the customer.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Deficiency of Service - The court examined the warranty clause and held that the supplier of the vehicle should be responsible for replacing defective parts during the warranty period, not the customer. The court found that Telco was responsible for reimbursing the complainant for the cost of the tyres. Birla Tyres was also held liable. The court did not pass any order in respect of the battery and shock absorber. The court ordered Telco to pay the complainant's litigation costs.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a Tata Model LPT B/42 Truck Chasis from Telco on a loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation. Complainant alleged that an old chassis was delivered to him and the tyres were damaged. Telco denied liability and stated that the warranty only applied to parts manufactured by them. Complainant also alleged other defects in the vehicle. The court found that there were no major manufacturing defects and accepted the claim for tyres and battery. The court held that the supplier of the vehicle should be responsible for replacing defective parts during the warranty period, not the customer. The court ordered Telco to reimburse the complainant for the cost of the tyres. Birla Tyres was made jointly and severally liable with Telco. Telco was also ordered to pay the complainant's litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the warranty clause and held that the supplier of the vehicle should replace defective parts during the warranty period, not the customer. The court found that Telco was responsible for reimbursing the complainant for the cost of the tyres. Birla Tyres was also held liable. The court did not pass any order in respect of the battery and shock absorber. The court ordered Telco to pay the complainant's litigation costs.
Ratio Decidendi: During the warranty period, the supplier of the vehicle should be responsible for replacing defective parts, not the customer. The warranty clause should be exercised by the supplier on behalf of the customer.
Result: The complaint petition is allowed. Telco and Birla Tyres are jointly and severally liable. Telco is ordered to pay the complainant the cost of the tyres and the litigation costs. The amount should be paid within three months.
Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President—This is an original case. Complainant purchased a Tata Model LPT B/42 Truck Chasis for Rs. 4,02,015/- from Telco on a loan from the Orissa State Financial Corporation which was advanced to him by the corporation as a gesture of goodwill to rehatilitate him after taking a voluntary retirement from service as a Driver from the O.S.F.C. His grievance is he took delivery of the chassis on 28.2.1994 and after body buiilding the same was on road on 4.5.1994. His grievance is an old chassis was delivered to him and secondly the six tyres were totally damaged because of the chassis being kept in the show-room from 7.3.1993 till 28.2.1994 with defaulted tyres and thus by September, 1994 the tyres had become unservicable. He also alleged battery and the two shock abserbers to be defective.
2. The Telco took the stand denying any liability for deficiency of service. They denied the fact of the truck being kept in the show-room with deflated tyres. So far as defect in the chassis is concerned, they admitted that the gear box cover was broken which they undertook to replace it and also subsequently the same was replaced. As regards the defect in the tyres they relied on Clause 3 of the warranty which said that any part or parts not manufacutred by Telco, the warranty would be applicable only against the manufacturer of these parts. In the present case since tyres were purchased from Birla Tyres, the later would be only liable to compensate but not the Telco. Further, it was urged that any damage to the tyres was only due to normal wear tear.
3. Heard Mr. B.N. Udgata, the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. G.B. Jena on behalf of Mr. D.P. Dhal the learned Counsel for the Telco. None appears for Birla Tyres, who have been impleaded as a party at the instance of the complainant vide our order dated 27.8.2002. The service of notice on Birla Tyres vide A.D. received. They are absent, hence set ex parte
4. From the various allegation in the complaint petition and the nature of defects pointed out by the complainant, we do no find that the vehicle had any major manufacturing defect nor the engine itself. That apart we find the complainant availed the 3rd free servicing by 19.9.1994. By the second servicing on 7.7.1994 the vehicle had run 18,500 kms. as per the case of the complainant. In para-9 of the complaint petition the complainant has given various repair works and amount he spent towards such repair works and purchase of tyres at the costs of Rs. 55,000/- and a new battery amounting to Rs. 4,528.78. Out of these items we only accept the claim in respect of tyres and the battery. The rest of the items in respect of which the complainant undertook the repair works there being small items which needed repair because of normal wear and tear. We have not thought it appropriate to adjudicate the dispute on that.
5. In para-8 of the complaint petition, complainant alleged the six tyres and tubes became totally unservicable by September, 1994 i.e. about 6 months from the date of delivery of the chassis. This was brought to the notice of the O.Ps. as is clear from the letters dated 30.9.1994 wherein they informed the complainant that his matter is being looked into. Annexure -10 is their letter addressed to the Birla Tyres Ltd., c/o. Ganesh Agancies, Cantonment Road, Cuttack that air bulgging out in the inside well. In reply to the complaint of defective tyres, the O.Ps. in para-3 of the counter stated that as per the Clause-3 of the warranty the complainant was entitled to exercise so far as permissible by law such rights against the manufacturer of tyres and battery etc. In the said paragraphs it is mentioned that the complainant produced the tyres on 31.12.1994 for examination and the complainant received a letter of the Company addressed to the Birla Tyres to have correspondances with them.
6. We have carefully examined the warranty clause as quoted below :
“With regard to parts not manufactured by us b
