MALWA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD Vs. SUNANDA SANGWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1704 & 1731 of 2011, vide which while dismissing both the appeals filed by the petitioners, the order dated 28.10.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal in consumer complaint no. 822/2010, allowing the said complaint was upheld. The consumer complaint in question was filed by Sunanda Sangwan, who is respondent no. 1 in both the petitions. The petitioner Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is the authorised dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. and is OP No. 1 in the complaint. In RP No. 297/2013, the petitioner is Tata Motors Ltd., which is manufacturer of the vehicle in question and has been made OP No. 2 in the complaint. This single order shall dispose of both the revision petitions and a copy of the same be kept on each file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, who is a Professor in the OP Jindal University, Sonepat, purchased a Tata Indigo CS LXI car from OP No. 1 Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on 14.09.2010 for a consideration of Rs.4,77,900/. As alleged, the car started creating abnormal sound from the engine, within two days of purchase. A telephonic complaint was registered with the sales person Sanjeev Kumar of OP No. 1. The complainant, thereafter, took the car to Tayal Motors, authorised dealer of OP No. 2 at Faridabad on 04.10.2010, where service was done and the Engineers assured that the car will run smoothly. However, the defect of abnormal noise in the engine continued and the engine also emitted bad smell, like smoke coming out of burnt rubber. The factum of abnormal noise has been mentioned in the job cards also. The complainant obtained second opinion from Markandeshwar Service Garage at Pipli, Kurukshetra, where she was told that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect, which could not be removed by repairs. Further, when the complainant was going to attend to her job, the car got jammed on the road in the way. It was taken to OP No. 1 on 14.10.2010 and it remained in their workshop for three days. The car was again brought to OP No. 1 on 19.10.2010, when it was sent back after test drive only. Again the car was taken to OP No. 1 on 20th October and the job cards do mention about the problems in the running of the car. The defects in the car could not be removed by the Engineers of OP No. 1, despite many requests. OP No. 1 refused to replace the car or refund the price of the same. The complainant requested that the car be replaced with a new car or in the alternative, an amount of Rs.4,77,900/- be paid to her along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the purchase of the car till realisation, and in addition, demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakh for mental harassment etc. and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum vide their order dated 28.10.2011 came to the conclusion that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. They ordered that the cost of the vehicle, amounting to Rs.4,77,900/- should be refunded to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 29.10.2010 till realisation. Two appeals were preferred against this order, one by the dealer, Malwa Automobiles Ltd. and the other by the manufacturer, i.e., Tata Motors Ltd. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 1.10.2012 dismissed both the appeals, upholding that the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs stood proved. It is against this order that the present revision petitions have been made by the OPs.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner Malwa Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. submitted that the complainant never complained of any manufacturing defect in the car till the date of her filing complaint before the District Forum. The documents on record produced by the complainant showed that on 04.10.2010, within 20 days of purchase of car, the vehicle had travelled 2570 kms. The car had travelled 3258 km within 30 days and 4395 km within one month and 7 days of purchase. The complaint made after running of the car of 2570 kms related to adjustment of timing belt tensioner and fuel filters. After running 4395 kms, there were complaints relating to noise and were made with the intention of leaving the car in the workshop of the petitioner. It was unfair on the part of the complainant to write on the job card on 20.10.2010, that it was her 7th visit in one month. She refused to take the vehicle back, although a request was made by the petitioner to do so. Regarding the second opinion taken from Markandeshwar Service Garage at Pipli, Kurukshetra, the learned counsel stated that this opinion was taken after six months. Referring to the report of Er. J.K. Sharma, Automobile Engineer, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, learned counsel stated that it was not clear why it took him one month to prepare the report after inspection.