Advantage Consumer

TATA Motors penalised for issuing misleading advertisement about the mileage given by its Indigo petrol car

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2015
(Against the Order dated 17/06/2015 in Appeal No. 454/2014 of the State Commission, West Bengal)

TATA MOTORS LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE-1842, 2ND FLOOR,
RAJDANGA MAIN ROAD, P.S. KASBA
KOLKATA-700107    ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PRADIPTA KUNDU & ANR.
S/O SHRI NRIPENDRANATH KUNDU,
45D, ULTADANGA ROAD, GROUND FLOOR,
FLAT NO.2, P.S. ULTADANGA,
KOLKATA-700004

2. GENERAL MANAGER (SERVICE)
T.C.MOTORS PVT. LTD. NH-6, SALAP MORE,
P.S. DOMJUR. HOWRAH-711403 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
    HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH, PRESIDING MEMBER

Dated : 02 Mar 2020

ORDER

1.   This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 26.05.2015 in Appeal No.454/2014.

2.   The case of the Complainant is that he was allured by the advertisement issued by the Petitioner to purchase a petrol car Tata Indigo-CS- BGLX-BS4 for Rs.4,28,575/- besides other expenses amounting to Rs.56,396/-. It was stated in the advertisement issued by Tata Motors and Tata Motor Finance that the vehicle would give a mileage of 25 kmpl. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,59,971/- and took delivery of the car on 28.09.2011 after availing finance of Rs.2,25,000/- from Tata Motor Finance, to be repaid in EMI of Rs.7,101/-. The Complainant brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties the shortfall in mileage being given by the car. Mileage test drive was done on different dates and the car could not give the mileage of 25 kmpl as advertised by the Opposite Parties. Several letters were written by the Complainant to replace the car, but in vain. Hence, a Complaint was filed with the District Forum.

3.   The case was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 denying all the allegations made by the Complainant, apart from questioning the maintainability of the Complaint, that there was no expert opinion, the ARAI certified mileage of 25 kmpl was not for the concerned vehicle and that the Complainant was not the owner of the vehicle, as it was hypothecated to the bank. Opposite Party No.2 also denied all the allegations and stated that the Complainant had bought the vehicle after a test drive and satisfying himself about the car. The shortfall in mileage was attributed to the rough handling of the car and bad condition of the road.

4. The District Forum gave its decision with reasons and directed the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.4,84,971/-, a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. All the payments were to be made within one month and default would carry an interest of 10% p.a. till realization. The Complainant was also directed to pay all the bank dues and make arrangements to return the vehicle to the Opposite Party.

5.   Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party- Tata Motors Ltd. filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal in part. The Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days failing which interest @ 9% shall accrue from the date of default till realization. For taking recourse to deceptive trade practice by way of misleading advertisement, the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.1,50,000/- to be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal within 45 days failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue from the date of default till realization. Other directions passed by the District Forum were set aside.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents and also carefully perused the record. It is an admitted fact that an advertisement was issued by Tata Motors and Tata Motor Finance claiming a mileage of 25 kmpl, also the fact that it is India’s most fuel efficient car and that it was an offer for a limited period. This allured the Complainant to buy the car and he was disappointed that the car was not giving the mileage as claimed in the advertisement. Test drive also showed that the mileage given by the car was certainly not as per the advertisement. Mileage test drive was done on different dates and it was found as 15.24 kmpl on 29.12.2011, 17.94 kmpl on 05.07.2012, 17.42 kmpl on 28.09.2012 and a joint test/investigation was done on 16.01.2013 when mileage was found as 15.38 kmpl on long drive. The District Forum rightly held that in such a situation there was no need for an expert opinion. Car was manufactured by the Opposite Party which the Complainant had purchased after paying the price of the car. Taking the loan and hypothecation of the said car are not relevant to establish that the Complainant is a Consumer. Both the Fora below have come to a concurrent finding that the Opposite Parties resorted to deceptive trade practice by alluring customers and promoting sale of their cars. The advertisement also had not mentioned whether the mileage shown was for diesel or petrol car.

7. I do not find infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Fora below. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice.

8. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to reassess or re-appreciate the evidences and substitute its opinion to the concurrent findings of fact by the Fora below. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: -
“13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

9.       Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

10.     The Petitioner failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or that the findings are perverse i.e. not based on the evidences. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela


	Important judgements passed by the Consumer Courts TATA Motors penalised for issuing misleading advertisement about the mileage given by its Indigo petrol car NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2133 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 17/06/2015 in Appeal No. 454/2014 of the State Commission, West Bengal) TATA MOTORS LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE-1842, 2ND FLOOR, RAJDANGA MAIN ROAD, P.S. KASBA KOLKATA-700107 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRADIPTA KUNDU & ANR. S/O SHRI NRIPENDRANATH KUNDU, 45D, ULTADANGA ROAD, GROUND FLOOR, FLAT NO.2, P.S. ULTADANGA, KOLKATA-700004 2. GENERAL MANAGER (SERVICE) T.C.MOTORS PVT. LTD. NH-6, SALAP MORE, P.S. DOMJUR. HOWRAH-711403 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH, PRESIDING MEMBER Dated : 02 Mar 2020 ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, “the State Commission”) dated 26.05.2015 in Appeal No.454/2014. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he was allured by the advertisement issued by the Petitioner to purchase a petrol car Tata Indigo-CS- BGLX-BS4 for Rs.4,28,575/- besides other expenses amounting to Rs.56,396/-. It was stated in the advertisement issued by Tata Motors and Tata Motor Finance that the vehicle would give a mileage of 25 kmpl. The Complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,59,971/- and took delivery of the car on 28.09.2011 after availing finance of Rs.2,25,000/- from Tata Motor Finance, to be repaid in EMI of Rs.7,101/-. The Complainant brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties the shortfall in mileage being given by the car. Mileage test drive was done on different dates and the car could not give the mileage of 25 kmpl as advertised by the Opposite Parties. Several letters were written by the Complainant to replace the car, but in vain. Hence, a Complaint was filed with the District Forum. 3. The case was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 denying all the allegations made by the Complainant, apart from questioning the maintainability of the Complaint, that there was no expert opinion, the ARAI certified mileage of 25 kmpl was not for the concerned vehicle and that the Complainant was not the owner of the vehicle, as it was hypothecated to the bank. Opposite Party No.2 also denied all the allegations and stated that the Complainant had bought the vehicle after a test drive and satisfying himself about the car. The shortfall in mileage was attributed to the rough handling of the car and bad condition of the road. 4. The District Forum gave its decision with reasons and directed the Opposite Parties to refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs.4,84,971/-, a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. All the payments were to be made within one month and default would carry an interest of 10% p.a. till realization. The Complainant was also directed to pay all the bank dues and make arrangements to return the vehicle to the Opposite Party. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party- Tata Motors Ltd. filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal in part. The Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days failing which interest @ 9% shall accrue from the date of default till realization. For taking recourse to deceptive trade practice by way of misleading advertisement, the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed to pay punitive damages of Rs.1,50,000/- to be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal within 45 days failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue from the date of default till realization. Other directions passed by the District Forum were set aside. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents and also carefully perused the record. It is an admitted fact that an advertisement was issued by Tata Motors and Tata Motor Finance claiming a mileage of 25 kmpl, also the fact that it is India’s most fuel efficient car and that it was an offer for a limited period. This allured the Complainant to buy the car and he was disappointed that the car was not giving the mileage as claimed in the advertisement. Test drive also showed that the mileage given by the car was certainly not as per the advertisement. Mileage test drive was done on different dates and it was found as 15.24 kmpl on 29.12.2011, 17.94 kmpl on 05.07.2012, 17.42 kmpl on 28.09.2012 and a joint test/investigation was done on 16.01.2013 when mileage was found as 15.38 kmpl on long drive. The District Forum rightly held that in such a situation there was no need for an expert opinion. Car was manufactured by the Opposite Party which the Complainant had purchased after paying the price of the car. Taking the loan and hypothecation of the said car are not relevant to establish that the Complainant is a Consumer. Both the Fora below have come to a concurrent finding that the Opposite Parties resorted to deceptive trade practice by alluring customers and promoting sale of their cars. The advertisement also had not mentioned whether the mileage shown was for diesel or petrol car. 7. I do not find infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Fora below. Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. 8. The jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very limited. This Commission is not required to reassess or re-appreciate the evidences and substitute its opinion to the concurrent findings of fact by the Fora below. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 has held as under: - “13. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.” 9. Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “23. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.” 10. The Petitioner failed to point out any miscarriage of justice or that the findings are perverse i.e. not based on the evidences. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. TOP