1. TATA MOTORS LTD.
UNIT NO/305, 3RD FLOOR, TOWER-B SIGNATURE TOWERS, SOUTH CITY-I NH-8
GURGAON-122001                                            ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                  Versus    
1. AJAY SINGH & ANR.
S/O SHRI SAHDEEP SINGH R/O V&PO CHELET PS: AMB,
UNA
HIMACHAL PRADESH
2. M/S CARGO MOTORS PVT. LTD.
NEAR AMBEY VALLEY, BHARWAIN ROAD,
HOSHIARPUR
PUNJAB                                                               ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
     HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

Dated : 01 Apr 2016

 
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This order shall decide two revision petitions, which are detailed above.    Revision petition No. 1742 of 2015 is filed by M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd./the dealer/opposite party No. 1, and the another  revision petition No. 1743 of 2015 is filed by Tata Motors Ltd., the manufacturer/opposite party  2.

2.      Shri Ajay Singh, the complainant, purchased Tata Indigo, CSLX car on 18.12.2009 from opposite party No. 1 for Rs.4,63,000/-.   When the complainant was taking the car to his village, he experienced that it climbed hilly road with great difficulty with first gear, emitted dense smoke, engine created peculiar noise and its pick up was slow.  There was problem in its turbo as it was giving excessive acceleration of its own.  He informed Shri R. K. Sharma and Shri V. K. Sood of OP No. 1, telephonically, on the next following day.  Shri V. K. Sood took the car to the workshop of OP 1 at Hoshiarpur with the help of a mechanic.  Even at that time, the car started with great difficulty after repeated efforts and its engine made screeching noise.  He was promised to remove the defects or to replace the car with a new one.  He again took the car to his village but he found that the same problems were existing in the vehicle, which were due to major inherent manufacturing defect in it.  Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and was liable to indemnify the complainant.  The complainant took the car to Shimla alongwith his family members.  The complainant reached Shimla with great difficulty as the problems were still persisting.

3.      Opposite Party No. 1 tried to remove the defects but all in vein.  The job cards dated 19.1.2010, 15.2.2010, 19.2.2010 and 22.2.2010 reveal that the car was brought to workshop by towing with another vehicle.  OP 1 explained that its engine was replaced with a new one on 22.02.2010 but according to the complainant, this was falsely stated.  The job card dated 22.2.2010 reflected that there were 17 major defects in the car.  On 09.3.2010, Mr. V. K. Sood of OP 1 gave in writing that the vehicle was still under repair but refused to give the job card.  The car remained in the workshop for a considerable time.

4.      A complaint was filed with the prayer that OP should refund Rs.4,63,000/-, being the price of defective car, besides payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs on account of mental harassment and humiliation alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum till realisation.

5.      In the written statement, the OP 1 admitted that the car was brought to it for checking.  It was denied that there was any inherent defect.  As per job card dated 19.2.2010, the vehicle was brought to the workshop with the starting problem and the pick-up problem.  The tax invoice was prepared on 22.2.2010 wherein 17 items were replaced.  The turbo and its engine were replaced.  It is admitted that there was some starting problem which occurred due to sub-standard fuel.  The defective parts i.e. Injector and Fuel Injector Pump (FIP) were sent to Lucas; the manufacturer of the pump, which were replaced under warranty.  The car was ready for delivery to the complainant since April, 2010 but in spite of repeated requests made on telephone and through various reminders, the complainant failed to take its delivery.

6.      OP 2 also denied that there was any manufacturing defect.  It was also averred that the vehicle in question was under hypothecation so the complainant was only the beneficiary and not its owner.  Again, the car is not recommended to be driven on the first gear on the hills as the transmission of the car depends upon the speed of the vehicle.  If the vehicle is driven on first gear, it would deteriorate the condition of its engine.  Again, on inspection, it was observed that the alternator was broken due to bad and negligent driving.  The car was damaged due to use of sub-standard and low quality fuel.

7.      The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  An appeal was preferred by the complainant.  The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund the price of the car in the sum of Rs.4,63,000/- alongwith interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation.

8.      Both the opposite parties have filed the present revision petitions.

9.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Learned counsel for both the parties argued in respect of change of engine.  Considerable arguments were heard.  Subsequently, the counsel for the opposite parties after taking instructions from their clients, agreed to change the engine again.  He prayed that they should not be asked to pay the price of the car.  He explained that the complainant has abandoned the car for the last six years and the responsibility, if any, lies at the doors of the complainant.

10.    However, we are of the considered view that no responsibility can be saddled upon the complainant.  It is apparent that the complainant was so fed up with the problems of car that he did not show any interest to take back the vehicle.  He must be under the genuine doubt whether the vehicle had become roadworthy or not.  The State Commission has detailed the defects in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment and discussed the report of the expert.

11.    As a matter of fact, the complainant should have gone and seen his car.  He should have taken a try.  Six years have elapsed and the condition of his car must have deteriorated.  The petitioners submit that car is in a roadworthy position.  We, however, cannot blame the complainant because it is well known fact of our lives that a burnt child dreads the fire.

12.    Therefore, we hereby direct that the engine of the car be replaced in presence of the complainant or his authorised agent, after giving them notice to the same effect, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order.  The engine be replaced.  The vehicle will be given in a roadworthy condition in favour of the complainant except the change of tyres and battery for which the complainant will bear the loss.  All the other services, articles be repaired or replaced by the OPs jointly and severally.  The car be handed over to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The General Manager of Tata Motors Limited will issue a certificate that the car is in a roadworthy condition and sans defects.  The vehicle be given six months further warranty by opposite party No. 1.

13.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant, we grant him compensation in the sum of Rs.1 lakh.  The said compensation be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order otherwise it will carry interest @ 12 % per annum till its realisation.