TATA MOTORS Vs. RAJESH TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.11.2007, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ) in FA No. 711/2004, Rajesh Tyagi versus Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. , vide which, appeal against the order dated 10.08.2004, passed by THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, was allowed and the order passed by the District Forum was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/ respondent no. 1 Rajesh Tyagi purchased a Tata Indigo (GLX) car from the dealer respondent no. 2, M/s. Him Motors, Delhi for a sum of '4,45,811/-. He took an extended warranty for the vehicle against payment of '2,900/-. It has been alleged that after a few days of taking delivery of the car, the complainant noticed presence of water inside the car on the floor area under the front passenger seat. He took the car to the show-room to make a complaint, from where he was directed by respondent no. 2 to take the car to their workshop at Ghazipur. He was told by the personnel at workshop after check-up that there was no inlet for water in the body-shell and the water might have come from the window pane. A few days later, water was again noticed at the same place inside the car, whereupon he took the car again to the workshop. He was told by respondent no. 2 that some outlet of air-conditioner was got twisted and for that reason water was pouring inside. Once again, the same problem was noticed in the first week of May, 2003; the car was again taken to the workshop and the service adviser told the complainant that the external outlet for water was blocked and the same had been rectified by him. Again in the month of June 2003, the car was taken to the workshop at Ghazipur because water was inside the car. This time, a job-card was issued and the complainant was asked to leave the car in the workshop. After some time, the car was delivered back saying that the defect was due to damaged seal and had been rectified. It has been stated in the complaint that the very next day, again a lot of water was located inside the car at the same place. The car was again taken to the workshop and the concerned Engineer told the complainant that the dash board of the car was to be opened and the air-conditioner of the car was to be mended. The Engineer told him while delivering the car back that there was some defect in the manufacturing of air-conditioner and the same had been rectified. The complainant, however, noticed that the seat covers and footmats had been totally destroyed at the workshop and the front left door seat was damaged and dents had been made at various places. The complainant then contacted the manufacturers M/s. TELCO, now the petitioner, Tata Motors and after their intervention, the car was again taken to the workshop at Ghazipur where he was told that there was defect in the manufacturing of the body-shell of the vehicle and could not be cured. It was also assured that a failure report would be sent from the workshop to the company and the vehicle would be replaced after sanction of the company. However, when nothing was heard from the OPs, the complainant sent a claim letter / notice dated 18.07.2003 to the respondents requesting for refund of his money and compensation of ' 1 lakh for mental agony and harassment. The respondent no. 1 / petitioner rejected the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 1.09.2003. Thereafter, the complainant again took the car to the workshop for the first service on 22.11.2003. The car was returned to the complainant on 24.11.2003 but the defect still remained. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of ' 5,24,571/- along with interest @18% p.a. and also ' 1 lakh as compensation for mental harassment. The said complaint was, however, dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 10.08.2004, saying that the replacement or refund could not be given as the manufacturing defect in the vehicle had not been proved. However, in appeal filed before the State Commission, the complaint was allowed, directing the refund of cost of the vehicle, i.e., '5,24,471/- and to pay '50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner / manufacturer M/s. Tata Motors vehemently argued that there was no evidence of any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and hence, in the absence of a manufacturing defect, the petitioner was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The learned counsel cited various judgements, made by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the National Commission in favour of his arguments that the petitioners could be made liable only, if there was evidence of manufacturing defect. As per the version of the learned counsel, if a vehicle suffers from manufacturing defect, it stops working and it is not possible to rectify the said defect. Referring to the contents of the complaint in question, the learned counsel pointed out that the complainant had not given any specific dates when the vehicle was taken to the workshop for repairs. He specifically referred to the averments made in paragraph 3.7 to para 3.11 in the complaint in this regard. The District Forum had rightly observed that there were no documents on record to substantiate the version of the complainant that he visited the workshop of OPs before 21.06.2003. Learned counsel further stated that the main issue involved in the complaint relates to the presence of water inside the vehicle. However, even if water was found inside the vehicle, it could not be stated to be due to any manufacturing defect. According to the petitioners, the problem of water dripping inside the vehicle was complained for the first time on 21.06.2003 and it was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The same problem was complained of 5 months later, i.e., on 22.11.2003 and it was again attended to and rectified free of cost. The said complaint was never made post 22.11.2003, which shows that there was no manufacturing defect. Further, in accordance with the requirements of section 13(1)(b) and 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, an expert opinion should be called for in such cases and it is mandatory requirement, but in the present case, no such expert opinion has been called. In the complaint also, there is no allegation about the vehicle having any manufacturing defect. Further, the onus of proving that the manufacturing defect was there lies on the complainant. The National Commission has also been taking consistent view that the refund of price of vehicle can be given only if the existence of manufacturing defect is proved. The order made by the National Commission in Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. versus Dr. B.N. Prasad [] makes it very clear that the complainant has to prove by cogent, credible and adequate evidence, supported by the opinion of an expert that the vehicle suffered from inherent manufacturing defect. In the case of Classic Automobiles versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr., 2010 1 CPJ 235, it has been stated that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was on the complainant and further, it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect. The learned counsel further argued that in the present case, no compensation was required to be paid to the consumer under section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as there had been no negligence by the Opposite Parties.