Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Hind Motor (I) Ltd. & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Lakhbir Singh & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2790 of 2008 &
Revision Petition No.4345 of 2008
Decided on 2.12.2013
In R.P. No. 2790 of 2008
For the Petitioners:Mr. Riju Raj Jamwal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate
For the Respondent no.2:Mr. Aditya Narain, with Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Shashank Bhushan, Advocates.
In R.P. No. 4345 of 2008
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Narain, with Mr. Jasmeet Singh and Mr. Shashank Bhushan, Advocates.
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2 & 3:Mr. Riju Raj Jamwal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Act of selling old vehicle without disclosing date of manufacture amounts to unfair trade practice.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobile—Manufacturing defect—District Forum accepted complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- and directed petitioners to deliver a new defect free vehicle to respondent without charging any more cost from him—Old as well as used vehicle and also category of test drive vehicle was sold to complainant—Act of petitioners in selling vehicle which was manufactured in year 2005, in year 2006 without disclosing date of manufacture to complainant amounts to unfair trade practice—No expert opinion is required as facts of case itself speaks that major repairs were required just after short span of eight months from date of sale of vehicle—Finding recorded by Fora below that petitioners were deficient in rendering service is finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 16 to 21)
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Above noted revision petitions arise out of common order dated 29.4.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission ‘) in Appeals No. 1033 and 1007 of 2007.
2. Brief facts are that Respondent no.1/Complainant had purchased Tata Safari bearing Registration No.PB-12-H-7840 from Hind Motors India Ltd./Petitioners in (R.P. No.2790 of 2008) on 2.1.2006 for an amount of Rs.12,70,000/-. The vehicle was manufactured in July, 2005. There was manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and it was old as well as used vehicle. Immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started developing technical snags. It was brought to the notice of the petitioners. The vehicle was taken to the workshop of the petitioners 15 days after it was purchased. It was checked by the Engineer of the petitioners who noticed some manufacturing defect in the vehicle. However, the defects could not be removed. Then respondent no.1 took the vehicle to the workshop of the petitioners on 29.8.2006 and the vehicle was handed over to them. The petitioners issued the Job Card with estimate repair amount as Rs.2,25,000/-. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that he was harassed by the petitioners for about 8 months by giving defective vehicle. Respondent no.1 sent letter dated 6.12.2006 to Tata Motors/Respondent no.2 in (R.P. No.2790 of 2008) who is Petitioner in (R.P. No.4345 of 2008) requesting for the change of vehicle. In response, petitioners sent a letter dated 12.12.2006 pointing out that some alterations were got made from unauthorized dealers by respondent no.1 in the vehicle.
3. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed a complaint against the petitioners and Tata Motors in the District Forum, Ropar seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price of the vehicle with interest @ 18% p.a. besides the amount of compensation and costs.
4. Petitioners filed the written reply. Besides preliminary objections, the case was also contested on merits. It was pleaded that the complaint was false and not maintainable. Respondent no.1 has got it repaired from an unauthorized person and therefore, petitioners were not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The petitioners had brought to the notice of respondent no.1, vide their letter dated 12.12.2006 that there were unauthorized alterations in the vehicle. Respondent no.1 was liable to pay estimated cost of repairs of his vehicle. The estimates were also given by different workshops to respondent no.1. Since respondent no.1 had got certain parts of his vehicle repaired from unauthorized persons, therefore, the warranty clause will not apply. It was admitted that respondent no.1 had brought his vehicle to the workshop of petitioners on 29.8.2006 for repairs. An estimate was given by the petitioners to respondent no.1 who neither instructed the petitioners to repair the vehicle nor he picked up the vehicle. The vehicle was still lying in the premises of the petitioners. Therefore, respondent no.1 is liable to pay a sum of R.200/- per day towards garage charges. Legal notice was served on respondent no.1 on 15.1.2007 to pay this amount. It is denied that the vehicle was having any manufacturing defect or if it was manufactured in July, 2005 or if it was an old/used vehicle. No information was given by respondent no.1 to the petitioners about any defect in the vehicle prior to 29.8.2006 nor it was brought to their workshop. Letter dated 12.12.2006 was issued by the petitioners correctly. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. M/s. Tata Motors also filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was admitted that respondent no.1 had purchased a vehicle from them. The warranty terms were extended over the vehicle subject to certain obligatory terms and conditions. At the time of sale, the vehicle was defect free. The vehicle sold was neither old nor used. Respondent no.1 had no
