NATIONAL GARAGE Vs. VARINDER SINGH KATIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by M/s National Garage and M/s Tata Motors (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Virendra Singh Katiyar (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No. 1').

(2.) The facts of the case according to Respondent No. 1, who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that he purchased a Tata Spacio Passenger vehicle on 04.12.2000 for Rs. 3,97,297/- from the authorized dealer, M/s Shivam Motors(Respondent No. 2 herein) of M/s Tata Motors (Petitioner in R. P. No. 2637/2007). The warranty given for the engine of the vehicle was for a period of 3 years from the date of sale or upto 3 lakhs kilometers whichever was earlier. Rest of the parts of the vehicle were warranted for 18 months from the date of purchase irrespective of the distance covered. The contention of Respondent No. 1 is that the chassis of the said vehicle broke down within one year of its purchase which was replaced on 15.4.2002 by M/s Shivam Motors and at that time Rs. 1,010/- was charged from him even though this was during the warranty period. There was also a crack in the ceiling and panel of the engine and consequently in January, 2003 the engine developed a number of defects with difficulties in starting for which a complaint was also made but no attention was paid to it. Subsequently, M/s Shivam Motors directed the Respondent No. 1 to take the vehicle to Petitioner as the dealership of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled and M/s National Garage (Petitioner in R. P. 1914/2007) was appointed as a new dealer of M/s Tata Motors. Respondent No. 1 took his vehicle to Petitioner wherein the complaint was not satisfactorily attended to and the difficulty in starting of the vehicle etc. continued. Respondent No. 1, therefore, issued legal notice to the Petitioner requesting him to replace the defective engine with a new seal-packed engine along with fresh warranty which was declined. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that since he has been deprived of using the vehicle since January, 2002, the Petitioner should pay damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month within one week of receipt of the notice.

(3.) Petitioner (National Garage) has denied the above contentions. Petitioner further stated that when Respondent No. 1 contacted him following his appointment as dealer by Respondent No. 3, the manufacturing company, it undertook extensive repairs of the vehicle on 28.05.2003 and charged Rs. 16,522/- in respect of those parts of the vehicle which were not covered under the warranty and till date Respondent No. 1, however, had not paid the amount and instead filed the complaint. Respondent No. 2 has also denied the above contentions and stated that the repairs had been attended to promptly whenever the complaint was brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 2. Further, that Respondent No. 3 (Telco), the manufacturing company of the vehicle has terminated the dealership of Respondent No. 2 w. e. f. 16.09.2002 which was granted to the Petitioner and as such complaints relating to passenger vehicles were to be attended to by the new dealer i. e. Petitioner herein. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No. 2 as it is ceased to be the dealer of Respondent No. 3.