Krishna Kanhaiya Gontiya vs Tata Engineering And Locomotive Company Ltd

COMPLAINANT/petitioner purchased a TATA Spacio vehicle on 12.12.2000 from respondent No. 2-M/s. Commercial Automobiles, which was manufactured by TATA Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited-respondent No. 1, under a Hire Purchase Agreement entered with TATA Finance Limited. Respondent No. 3 herein is the Workshop of respondent No. 2. TATA Finance Limited, which had been arrayed as opposite party No. 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna, Madhya Pradesh (for short ''the District Forum'') was not impleaded as Party Respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (for short ''the State Commission'') as well as before this Commission.

IT was averred in the Complaint that the vehicle in question suffered with many manufacturing defects and, when the vehicle was sent for repairs during the warranty period, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 charged the petitioner for the repairs and replacement of parts. Another allegation made in the Complaint was that Opposite Party No. 3 had levied higher interest, which was 2% more than the agreed rate of interest as per Hire Purchase Agreement. Thus, being aggrieved, petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum.

ON being served, respondents filed their separate Written Statements denying the allegations made in the Complaint. It was contended that the vehicle in question suffered only with day-to-day running problems, which were timely catered to the satisfaction of the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. That the parts, which were covered under warranty, were replaced free of cost and, only for the parts which were not covered under the warranty, charges were levied and collected. As regards higher rate of interest, it was stated that a rebate of 2% was to be given to the petitioner on his making payment of regular loan instalments and since the petitioner defaulted in making the regular payment of loan instalments, the interest was levied on the loan amount without any rebate on it. Thus, denying the allegations made in the Complaint, respondents prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the Complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the District Forum, complainant/petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (for short ''the State Commission''), which has been dismissed by the State Commission thereby holding that the petitioner had failed to establish his Complaint against the respondents.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition.

COUNSELS for the parties have been heard at length.

SINCE TATA Finance Limited was not made a Party Respondent in the Appeal, the State Commission concluded that the petitioner''s grievance against the TATA Finance Limited did not survive and, accordingly, confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum in this regard. TATA Finance Limited has not been impleaded as Party Respondent in the Revision Petition as well and no relief has been claimed against it in the Revision Petition. In view of this, the Order passed by the Fora below dismissing the Complaint against the TATA Finance Limited is confirmed.

THE next question, which falls for determination is as to whether the vehicle in question suffers from any manufacturing defect or that the respondents are guilty of deficiency in service in the matter of repair of vehicle, particularly, during the warranty period? Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have put on record the job cards dated 8.1.2001, 7.2.2001, 6.4.2001, 8.5.2001, 10.7.2001 and 27.8.2001. A perusal of the job cards reveals that whenever, from time to time, the vehicle was taken to the workshop, the same was attended to by the respondents to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Every job card is signed either by the petitioner or his agent/driver acknowledging the satisfaction of the work done by the respondents. From the record, we find that during the warranty period, the parts covered under warranty were replaced free of cost and the charges were recovered only for the parts which were not covered under warranty and for the repair work carried out. Problems recorded in the job cards do not point out any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In one of the job cards, it is mentioned that there was a crack in the front side chasis. Nothing has, brought on record to show as to what was the nature of the crack. After carrying out of the repair work, the petitioner took the vehicle back after acknowledging his satisfaction that the car had been fully repaired.

COUNSEL for the petitioner, then, contends that "engine oil chamber" and "engine''s cylinder block" were uprooted and broken off which clearly indicates that there was a manufacturing defect in the "engine oil chamber" leading to leakage of oil and uprooting of the engine. Petitioner had raised similar contention before the State Commission as well. The State Commission has appointed Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, an Engineering Consultant and Insurance Surveyor to examine the vehicle. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, submitted his Report dated 25.8.2005 along with the photographs which indicate that the damage to the engine oil chamber and engine''s cylinder blocks was due to the hitting of the frontal lower/beneath of the vehicle with some external/foreign body and, in his opinion, the damage was due to accident and the driving of the vehicle even after the leakage of oil. The Report of Shri Sanjeev Agrawal clearly points out that the damage to the car was due to an accident and not due to any manufacturing defect for which the respondents cannot be held liable. Petitioner has not led any evidence to disprove the Report of the independent Expert appointed by the State Commission. In the absence of any such evidence, we are inclined to accept the Report submitted by the Expert.

FOR the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.