BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MAYURBHANJ, BARIPADA
C.C. Case No. 116/06
Deepak Puri, aged about 35yrs
S/o- Pramad Chand Puri,
At/Po/Ps- Rairangpur, Word No-9,
Dist.- Mayurbhanj ………………….Complainant
-VRS-
1. M/s PAL MOVERS PVT. LTD.
Khan Nagar, N.H.-5, Balasore
Phone- 06782309237, 9437017485, 9437031924
2. M/s TATA MOTOR LTD.
Service Division, Jamsedpur,831010( Jharkhand)
3. M/s TATA MOTOR LTD.
Customer Service, Commercial Vehicle.
Lalbahadur Shastri Marg, Wagle Estate,
Thane – 400504
4. M/s TATA MOTOR FINANCE
Bezzola Complex – 1st Floor,
V.N. – Purav Marg, Chember,
Mumbai – 400071
5. M/s TATA MOTOR REGIONAL SALES OFFICE,
At – Patrapada, N.H. No.-5,
Bhubaneswar, 751002
Dist – Khurda
……….. …..Opposite Parties
Present:
Sri H. K. Panigrahi, President
Smt. Anupama Mohanta, Member
Sri K.C. Nayak, Member
Counsels:
For the Complainant: Sri Kishore Chadra Mohanty and his Associates
For The OPs: Sri Purnachandra Jena
Date of hearing: 27.11.06
Date of order: 08-12-09
O R D E R
Smt. Anupama Mohanta:-
The complainant Sri Deepak Puri has instituted this dispute case u/s 12 of CP Act 1986 against OPs for deficiency in service on their part.
In nutshell the case of the complainant is that he has purchased a TATA 207 DI (Pick up Van) bearing engine No. 497SP27BUZ816296 and chesis No. 374415PUZ909311 from the show room of OP No-1 (M/S PAL MOVERS PVT LTD) who is the authorized dealer of opposite party-2 M/s TATA MOTORS LTD. The complainant has purchased this vehicle on 28.2.05 and got delivered of this vehicle on the same day annexure 1 (b). The registration of the vehicle is OR-11E-0702. Opposite Party M/s TATA MOTOR FINANCE is the Financer, who financed for the above said vehicle Being a consumer the complainant purchased the above vehicle and uses it exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelyhood by means of self employment. The complainant alleges that after purchase, the vehicle was not working properly due to manufacturing defect of engine, which defect of the engine could not be found in usual course of inspection by engineers of the authorized service centre. Therefore complainant approached OP No.1 and 2 within warranty period (as per Owner Manual and Service Book) to get the pickup van replace or refund the amount (Rs. 4,04,002/-) paid by him. Further the complainant alleges that due to manufacturing defect of the engine, the vehicle was detained most of the times in the authorized service centre for repair. For such detention of the vehicle in the authorized service centre , the complainant was deprived of using the vehicle and to derive income out of the use of the vehicle and suffered from financial crisies to repay the monthly installment to OP financer. Further alleges that due to repeated repair of engine of vehicle by paying the cost of repair within warranty period repeatedly caused mental agony and harassment and complainant therefore filed this complaint and seeking direction to OPs No.-1,2&3 to replace the said vehicle, i.e. 207 DIPICKUPVAN with PS(CLB) or to refund the amount of Rs. 4,04,002/- which was paid by him to OPs No1 ,2 &3 towards the cost of the said vehicle alongwith interest at the rate of 12% till realization and to pay compensation towards damaged sustained by complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In response to the notice of the Forum OPs appeared though advocate and resisted the complaint and contested the claim. In written Version they challenging that complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the above said vehicle for commercial purpose and complaint is not maintainable. Only Mumbai court has Jurisdiction to entertain the case and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. OPs have admitted the selling of vehicle and denied the allegation of detention of vehicle in the service centre most of the times. OPs further stated that, complainant only reported to OP No.-1 on dt. 09-03-05 for free service after covering 217 km at run and thereafter for 2nd time on dt. 30-09-05 coverage of 29,509Km with a complaint of high engine oil consumption and oil leakage from cylinder head. But OPs mentioned in their written version that after verification they did not find the manufacturing defect. The OPs averred the engine of the vehicle was repaired and delivered on Dt. 05-10-05 after necessary rectification and also pointed out that due to rough use, poor maintenance of the vehicle and non observation of guidelines of the operation of service book, the engine has failed, but it was not due to any manufacturing defect. According to OPs they have promptly serviced / repaired under guidelines of warranty policy. Further. OPs submitted that complainant is a defaulter and has failed to pay installment therefore have raised some frivolous grounds to avoid the repossession of vehicle as such OPs pray to reject the complaint.
The complainant relies on the following documents in support of his claim.
a) Xerox copy of sale invoice Annexure-1(a)
b) Xerox copy of vehicle delivery
receipt (VDR) Annexure-1(b)
c) Xerox copy of Loan cum
Hypothecation agreement Annexure-1(c )
d) Particular of vehicle & Loan Annexure-1(d)
e) Xerox copy of the RC Book Annexure-1(e)
f) Xerox copy of the case memo
of authorized dealer Pal Movers
Pvt. Ltd. Annexure-1(f)
g) Xerox copy of the representation Annexure-1(g)
h) Xerox copy of reply of
Pal Movers Pvt. Ltd. As to
the representation of the
complainant Annexure-1(h)
j) Xerox copy of owners manual
& service books as to the
chapters of warranty and
emission warranty Annexure-1(j)
On the other hand Ops have relied the following documents in support of their written version.
1. Xerox copy of the retail invoice (cash)
of Pal Movers Pvt. Ltd. Annexure-1
Xerox copy of Bill No.- 399/05-06
dt. 08-10-05 Annexure-1(a)
2. Xerox copy of promissory note Annexure-2
3. Xerox copy of Loan-cum-
Hypothecation Agreement, Xerox Copy
of Particular of Vehicle and Loan Annexure-3
Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the complaint petition, written version and the documents filed by them. Case record shows that none of the parties have filed evidence affidavit. In this instant case the complainant has purchased the vehicle and OP-1 has issued him the sale invoice vide Annexure 1(a) , consideration money has been paid by the complainant and same is admitted by OPs. By getting the loan amount complainant has purchased the above said vehicle for commercial use in order to give him self employment. In this purpose we have placed the decision passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, as reported in CTJ October 2006 Volume 14, No. X, page 996 in the case East India Construction Company Ltd. Vrs Mordern Consultancy services and others where National Commission states that “Consumer – Commercial Purpose – Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) – Admittedly the complainant engaged in construction business purchased the machine for commercial purpose – However considering that defects in the machine occurred during its warranty period, the complainant could move consumer forum for relief as a consumer”. In view of the above decision undisputedly complainant is a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(II) of CP Act. As the complaint is a consumer under section 2 (1)(d)(II) of CP Act and cause of action (defect) has arisen within warranty period after purchase of the vehicle, Hence forum has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
Now the question is to decided whether the OPs are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
From the above and perusal of the complaint petition written version and document we find that allegation of complainant is that due to manufacturing defect of engine, the said vehicle was detained most of the times in authorized service centre for repair, and due to repeated repair of engine of vehicle within warranty period by paying the cost of repair caused mental agony and harassment. But it has not been disclosed by complainant on which date defect in engine was detected and what was the nature of defect and how many days the vehicle was detained in the service centre of authorized dealer OP No-1 for repair and how many times he repaired the engine for defect with in warranty period, and how many rupees he has paid for repeated repair? But OPs in written version mentioned that only two times complainant has reported to the work shed on dt. 09-03-05 for first free service after covering of 217 Km at run and second time after coverage of 29,509Km on 30-09-05 (after seven months of purchase) with a complaint of high engine oil consumption and oil leakage from cylinder head and also OPs repaired the engine and delivered on 05-10-05. The above pleas of OPs are not controverted by complainant by filing affidavit or by oral evidence. On perusal of service book manual vide annexure 1(j) it is found that warranty was given for the engine for three years from the date of sale of the vehicle or 3,00,000 Km of it running which ever occurring earlier. The warranty for the rest of the vehicle shall be for 18 months from the date of sale. Annexure- 1(f), clearly reveals that OPs repaired the engine within warranty period and Annexure-1(a) of OP, indicates that OP-1 has received the bill charges, cost of the spare parts. These documents show that OP have repaired the engine, replaced some spare parts with cost. The complainant also paid the cost of the spare parts of Rs. 10,200/- even if in the warranty period including labour charges.
Further there is absolutely no materials in the record to show that there was manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle and similar defect was detected in the vehicle again and again frequently from the date of purchase. In absence of any such material it can not definitely and conclusively be said that there was manufacturing defect in engine. In absence of the proof of the facts, there is manufacturing defect in the engine of the vehicle the complainant is not entitled to get refund of the consideration and replacement of the vehicle. But since it is found from the Annexure-1(f), 1(a) that OP No 1 and 2 are deficient in rendering the customer service by receiving the bill charges of spare parts within warranty period. Therefore complainant is entitled to other relief sought for by him. Hence order.
O R D E R
The complaint be and the same is partly allowed on contest against the OP No 1 & 2 and dismissed against others OP No-3, 4 and 5. The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to refund the bill charges of spare parts Rs. 7,784/- (Seven thousand seven hundred eighty four) only to the complainant and pay Rs 2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation within one month from receipt of this order.
Order pronounced in the open Forum on 8th day of December 2009 under my hand & seal of the forum.
Sd/- sd/- sd/-
Sri K.C. Nayak Sri H.K. Panigrahi Smt.Anupama Mohanta
Member President Member
D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd D.C.D.R.Forum, Mbj, Bpd