Multiple visits to a service center and replacement of parts do not automatically establish a manufacturing defect without a technical expert report, especially if the vehicle later functions normally.

ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1. These two revision petitions have been filed respectively by the dealer/service centre M/s Oberoi Motors (RP/04/2022) and the manufacturer M/s Tata Motors Ltd.(RP/31/2022) of one Indica diesel car purchased by the respondent complainant Mr. Nishant Garg in the year 2005. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that immediately after the purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle started giving multiple problems and irritants, resulting into multiple visits to the service centre i.e. M/s Oberoi motors. Despite the servicing by the service centre, due to inefficiency and carelessness of the dealer/service centre, and due to inherent manufacturing defects, the issues and problems in the vehicle could not be successfully addressed and did not get resolved. As a matter of fact, the complete engine assembly was also required to be changed which also even after such change of engine and alleged servicing by the service centre, continued to give troubles, including low average, starting problems and such other irritants. The vehicle underwent as many as eight visits to the service centre during a short period of use between 21.01.2005 to 17.09.2005 during which the vehicle had run only around 4600 kms. The complaint before the District Forum, thus, came to be filed on 17.04.2006 alleging manufacturing defect and deficiencies in servicing and praying for replacement of the car/new car or refund of the invoice value along with compensation for mental agony of Rs.10 lakhs. The District Forum, after hearing the parties in its decision rendered on 19.01.2009, has held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the dealer/service centre M/s Oberoi Motors in selling a car to the complainant which is not in good condition and which is not road worthy. The liability, however, was held to be jointly both of the dealer M/s Oberoi Motors and the manufacturer M/s Tata Motors for the deficiency in service by way of apparent manufacturing defect. The District Forum relied on various decisions referred to in the last para of the order. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:

“As far as the car purchased by the complainant is concerned, it is accepted by both the parties that the complainant had purchased the car from the place of the Op. No. The complainant says that from the day of purchase of the above car, difficulties related to starting started coming in it and ECU (Mini Computer) got defective which was replaced by the opposition but not fixed. The self of the car got damaged. Opponent replaced both the engine and the self of the car 22.08.2005. Coolant and transmission got low automatically, alignment got bad, hose pipe got damaged, engine started leaking oil, and its average was low, car lost its mobile mass after 4388 kms, engine missing and the sound started coming from it. His fuel system was sent to the company twice but that was not done. In support of this statement, the complainant has also filed his affidavit and has also filed a photocopy of the job card of the service of eleven nos. The statement of the complainant is also supported by these job cards because the above shortcomings are mentioned on the job card. Opponent says that all the above deficiencies were rectified to the full satisfaction of the complainant but all these job cards which are N. 03 to 9, 11, 18 to 20 it is clear that the satisfaction note on these is not signed by the complainant. In such a situation it cannot be said that the opposite parties have rectified the d