SURESH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. M.D TATA MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dtd. 10/8/2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, Bihar, in Appeal bearing No. 220 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dtd. 18/6/2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Rohtas (Sasaram), in Case No. 13/2013.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo Mazda QZ vehicle bearing registration no. BR-24H-8111 by taking a loan from Tata Motors on 18/1/2010 as it was needed on a regular basis for the treatment of his family members. It was the case of the Complainant that he had taken the car to Pirana Motors, Gaya, on 21/10/2010 as the accelerator used to come to a halt. However, no attention was paid and the vehicle was returned without any clarification. Again, on 26/12/2010, the Complainant took the vehicle to Kumar Distributors, Patna, and informed them about the defect. However no defect was traced and the Complainant was not given a clear response. Now, the Complainant began to believe that a defective engine was given to him by the Tata Motors. It was stated that the Complainant received no gain by purchasing the vehicle and he always had to use a rented vehicle for his family members. Again, on 6/9/2011, the Complainant took the vehicle to Guinea Motors, Patna, where the defect of poor pickup was notified and a few things under guarantee were changed. Despite this, the defect in the vehicle remained the same. Again on 21/9/2011, the Complainant visited Guinea Motors Pvt. Ltd., Patna, where it was informed that there are troubles in the engine of the vehicle. Consequently, the Complainant handed over the vehicle to them on 2/12/2011 for removal of the defects. It was further stated that the vehicle was under Warranty till 18/1/2012 and was handed over to Guinea Motors before the expiry of such period. But on 21/2/2012, Guinea Motors intimated the Complainant that Tata Motor had denied to cure the defects. Hence, it was alleged that Tata Motors, Pirana Motors and Guinea Motors were working in connivance and a faulty engine was sold to the Complainant. On 23/5/2012, the Complainant was informed that the he had to bear 33% of the expenses incurred on repairing and the Complainant paid a total of Rs.50,000.00 as per demand when the total expense was Rs.80,000.00, hence, ending up paying more than 33%. Despite incurring expenses on repair, the defects still persisted and an additional defect of leakage of engine oil was spotted after the vehicle was brought back by the Complainant from Guinea Motors. Hence, the vehicle was taken to Guinea Motors, Patna, on 13/10/2012. A Legal Notice dtd. 10/12/2012 was sent to all the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum being aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Parties, seeking payment of Rs.5,00,000.00 for fulfilment of loss.

(3.) It has been noted by the Ld. District Forum in its Order dtd. 18/6/2015 that the Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded Ex-parte due to non-appearance. It was also noted by the Forum that the Opposite Party No.1 filed its reply and stated that no Technical Report has been filed by the Complainant to show deficiency in the vehicle which was a necessity under Sec. 13 of Consumer Protection Act and therefore dismissal of the Complaint was prayed for. It was further noted that the Opposite Party No.3 rebutted the allegations of the Complainant in their reply and stated that a Test Drive was conducted by Parina Motors and then it was handed back to the Complainant and at that time there was no malfunctioning in the vehicle. Hence, dismissal of the Complaint was also sought for by the Opposite Party No. 3.