Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Krishanpal Singh —Petitioner
versus
Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit & Anr. Respondents
Revision Petition No. 4575 of 2012 & Revision Petition No. 4787 of 2012
Decided on 7.5.2014
For Tata Motors Ltd. :Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Shashank Bhushan & Ms. Anushree Narain, Advocates
For Krishanpal Singh :Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Advocate With Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advocate
For HIM Motors Pvt. Ltd: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
If consumer is to be helped permanently, provisions enshrined in Section 13(1)(c) of C.P.Act should be followed.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Automobiles—Manufacturing defect—State Commission directed respondent to pay Rs.3.00 Lakhs to petitioner being refund of price after depreciation, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost—Car is lying with opposite party/dealer since year 2008— Whenever there is a complaint of manufacturing defect, it should be bounden duty of OPs to appoint their own Experts who are always available at their beck and call to prove that car does not suffer from any manufacturing defect—Car can neither be replaced nor its amount can be refunded—Roadworthy car to be handed over to complainant/ consumer—Compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- and cost of Rs.50,000/- also awarded. (Paras 8, 19, 26, 27 and 28)
Result: Revision Petition disposed of.
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member —This common order shall decide two revision petitions detailed above which arise from the same common order rendered by the State Commission, Delhi, passed in two First Appeals, one filed by the complainant, Sh. Krishanpal Singh and the other by Tata Motors Ltd.
2. The complainant, purchased a Tata Indigo Car from HIM Motors Pvt. Ltd., OP2, the Dealer of Tata Motors Ltd, which was arrayed as OP1, in the original complaint. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,63,341/- and took the delivery of the same on 15.12.2006. From the very start, the car was malfunctioning and revealed the symptoms of basic defect of the product. On 05.08.2008, the complainant informed M/s. Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd, OP3 that the said car had a number of defects. He also referred to the previous complaints made by him to the OPs. Again, a reminder was sent on 20.08.2008. The complainant also prayed that its cost should be returned.
3. On 18.07.2008, the complainant handed over the car to OP1 for repairs. OP1 assured that in addition to the change of gear box and fuel pump, any other defective part would be repaired, if so required. OP also informed the complainant that it would pay the charges of the taxi. The complainant also received a letter from OP2 expressing regret in respect of inconvenience, on 11.08.2008.
4. The complainant listed the following defects in the car:-
“a. Leakage of engine oil which could be rectified only after opening engine chamber 3-4 times.
b. Frequent failure of power system of the vehicle resulting in break/steering failure while driving which could have turned out to be major accident.
c. Failure of AC/Heater system.
d. Disbalance of Kamani ultimately leading to replacement of shocker.
e. Failure to meet pollution specifications
f. Low mileage”.
5. The complainant claimed that some of the problems faced are repetitive in nature, which included the following :-
Sl. No. Complaint No. of times attended
1. Brake jam 7 times
2. Steering jam 5 times
3. Gear problem 5 times
4. AC/Heater failure 7 times
5. Engine leakage 4 times
6. Poor pick-up 10 times
7. Low fuel average 4 times
8. Excessive smoke 5 times
9. Clutch problem 3 times
10. Noise in engine 3 times
6. Ultimately, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, with the following prayers :-
“1. Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the respondent to pay the cost of said car Rs.5,46,119/-.
2. Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- (inadvertently/wrong mentioned as Rs.2,500/- in legal notice), for and on account of expenses incurred by the complainant for accessories/addition parts fitted in the car.
3. Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the respondent to pay the sum of amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs in lieu of Taxi charges from dt. 18.07.2008 till date at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day.
4. Issue an appropriate order and direction thereby directing the respondent to pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of harassment, inconveniences, mental agonies, financial losses suffered by the complainant and his family members”.
7. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order :-
“Keeping in view the facts above, we find this is a fit case for ordering replacement of the car or refund of the cost thereof. It is noted by this Forum that in such type of cases, this Forum as well as Hon’ble State Commission have been taking a view that cost of the goods should be refunded so as to end the dispute once for all as replacement of any defective goods by new goods is not a solution as such replacement of the goods may not be up to the satisfaction of the consumer and this may relegate the parties to a second bout of litigation. Further, since vehicle in question has already run for more than 37,000 kms. It is for consideration for this Forum whether OP can be ordered to refund full cost of the vehicle. In a similar
