Date of Filing : 16.04.2014 Date of Disposal :13.04.2022 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED:13.04.2022 PRESENT HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER APPEAL No 548/2014 Smt Hema W/o Sri Jagadish Patil.

Aged 35 Years Plot No. 11, Chethana Colony, Gokul Road, Hubli.

Dharwad (By Sri Ravi Kiran, Advocate) Appellant -Versus-

1. M/s Tata Motors Pune Works, Passanger Car Business Unit, KD-03, Car Plant Sec, 15 & 15A, PCNTDA, Chikali, Pune – 410510.

Rep by its Managing Director.

Dharwad

2. M/s Tata Motors

26thFloor, Centre No.1 World Trade Centre, Couffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005.

Dharwad

3. The General Manager, M/s Manickbag Automobiles Pvt Ltd Block No. 278 Bairidevarakoppa Hubli – 580025 Dharwad (By Mr Benedict Anand, Advocate) Respondents :ORDER:

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the Complainant,aggrieved by the Order dated 18.03.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.227/2013 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Respondents. Since none represented the Appellant, the same is taken as heard.

3. Perused the Impugned Order, records and grounds of Appeal. Admittedly, on 20.10.2011 the Complainant purchased a brand new Tata Safari Vehicle, which was subsequently allotted RTO Registration No.KA 25 D 0812 from OP2 for a ON ROAD cost of Rs.10,63,832/- availing a loan from Bank of India and used the vehicle with care by keeping the vehicle in garage to avoid deterioration on account of rain and direct sun light. Surprisingly, during July 2013, the body of the said vehicle was found to be rusted near the wind shield glass, both bottom side of the rear quarter fixed glass, back door bottom side area and other parts, hence he brought the same to the notice of OP3, who as a reply in its letter dated 05.08.2013 stated that the rusting is due to normal wear & tear, hence, it is not covered under Warranty. The allegation of the Complainant is that the vehicle is having a manufacturing defect and hence seeking for replacement of the Body Shell ofthe vehicle or return of costof the vehicle paid by him, fordamages & costs. The stand taken by OPs 1 & 2 are that whatever the defects which are covered under Warranty have been attended free of charges during the intervals of the services. Since the vehicle exceeded the Warranty period, the claim of the Complainant does not come within the Warranty and as such they are not responsible for the same.

Similarly, OP3 has also taken a stand that the Complainant has taken all the services within the period of warranty and only after expiry of warranty, alleging manufacturing defects and OP3 being a Dealer, he cannot be held liable.

4. The rival contentions urged by both parties, the observation of the District Forum in Para 12 of the Impugned Order that on physical observation of the Car produced by the Complainant, it is not able to assess that the sheet metal used for the Body Shell is sub-standard one and due to it only the said defects have been shot out and even the Expert opinion is also not clear with regard to the said fact. Further, its observation in Para 13 that rest of the parts have not been eaten up due to similar wear & tear or damaged by rust and if the painting is done as per the norms mentioned by the OPs in their Written Version & Affidavit and objection filed to the expert opinion, it will suffice the requirement and settle the grievance of the Complainant and came to a conclusion that the defects alleged is not due to any bad weather conditions as alleged by OPs, but, because of bad workmanship during the painting work and therefore held it as deficiency in service and allowed the Complaint and held that the OPs are jointly and severally liable to attend and carryout painting works to the entire