NATIONAL GARAGE vs Varinder Singh Katiyar

THESE two revision petitions have been filed by M/s National Garage and M/s Tata Motors (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of Virendra Singh Katiyar (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1).

THE facts of the case according to Respondent No.1, who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that he purchased a Tata Spacio Passenger vehicle on 04.12.2000 for Rs.3,97,297/- from the authorized dealer, M/s Shivam Motors(Respondent No.2 herein) of M/s Tata Motors (Petitioner in R.P. No.2637/2007). THE warranty given for the engine of the vehicle was for a period of 3 years from the date of sale or upto 3 lakhs kilometers whichever was earlier. Rest of the parts of the vehicle were warranted for 18 months from the date of purchase irrespective of the distance covered. THE contention of Respondent No.1 is that the chassis of the said vehicle broke down within one year of its purchase which was replaced on 15.4.2002 by M/s Shivam Motors and at that time Rs.1,010/- was charged from him even though this was during the warranty period. THEre was also a crack in the ceiling and panel of the engine and consequently in January, 2003 the engine developed a number of defects with difficulties in starting for which a complaint was also made but no attention was paid to it. Subsequently, M/s Shivam Motors directed the Respondent No.1 to take the vehicle to Petitioner as the dealership of Respondent No.2 was cancelled and M/s National Garage (Petitioner in R.P.1914/2007) was appointed as a new dealer of M/s Tata Motors. Respondent No.1 took his vehicle to Petitioner wherein the complaint was not satisfactorily attended to and the difficulty in starting of the vehicle etc. continued. Respondent No.1, therefore, issued legal notice to the Petitioner requesting him to replace the defective engine with a new seal-packed engine along with fresh warranty which was declined. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that since he has been deprived of using the vehicle since January, 2002, the Petitioner should pay damages @ Rs.10,000/- per month within one week of receipt of the notice. Petitioner (National Garage) has denied the above contentions. Petitioner further stated that when Respondent No.1 contacted him following his appointment as dealer by Respondent No.3, the manufacturing company, it undertook extensive repairs of the vehicle on 28.05.2003 and charged Rs.16,522/- in respect of those parts of the vehicle which were not covered under the warranty and till date Respondent No.1, however, had not paid the amount and instead filed the complaint. Respondent No.2 has also denied the above contentions and stated that the repairs had been attended to promptly whenever the complaint was brought to the notice of the Respondent No.2. Further, that Respondent No.3 (Telco), the manufacturing company of the vehicle has terminated the dealership of Respondent No.2 w.e.f. 16.09.2002 which was granted to the Petitioner and as such complaints relating to passenger vehicles were to be attended to by the new dealer i.e. Petitioner herein. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No.2 as it is ceased to be the dealer of Respondent No.3.

The District Forum after hearing both parties accepted the complaint and directed the Petitioner along with Respondent No.2 and 3 to carry out the repairs in the vehicle or provide a new vehicle in place of the old vehicle. Rs.1,000/- was awarded as costs.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Petitioner and Respondent No.2 preferred separate appeals before the State Commission which disposed of the same by directing Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay the Respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- subject to the vehicle in question being returned by the Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on as is where is basis. Costs of Rs.5,000/- were also awarded. The relevant part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows: "it would be clear that the complainant has been complaining of the defects in the chassis, crack in the ceiling, breakdown in the engine and other defects, for which he approached the dealer M/s Shiva Motors (P) Ltd. It also appears that though some repairs were carried out, of which the bills have been placed on record, but the vehicle continued to given trouble to the complainant."

It further appears from the averments in the complaint that though the complainant approached the new dealer M/s National Garage on the advice of OP-1 M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. for repairs of the engine, however, the same was not duly repaired and the defects were not rectified. It is, therefore, clear that major defects in the engine and chassis, which are vital parts of the vehicle occurred during the period of warranty and they were not duly rectified by the OP-1 and also OP-2 National Garage, though the complainant approached both the old dealer M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. as well as the new dealer M/s National Garage and also reported the matter to the manufacturer.

IT is therefore, clear that though a new vehicle was sold to the complainant by the OP-1, which was manufactured by OP-3, yet the same continued to develop recurrent defects within the period of warranty. Obviously, therefore, breach of warranty conditions and non-repair of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant, render the OPs guilty of the deficiency in service. IT was stated on behalf of the complainant that the vehicle is still out of order and is not functioning. Therefore, obviously the defects and non-repair of the vehicle purchased by the complainant after obtaining finance has resulted in great financial loss as well as inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for Petitioner and Respondents No.2 and 3 were present. Respondent No.1 was present in-person. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that the chassis was repaired free of cost and Rs.1,010/- was charged only for those items not covered by warranty. It was also stated that since the dealership of the Respondent No.2 was terminated by Respondent No.3, hence its successor M/s National Garrage (Petitioner herein) was liable to rectify the defect occurring thereafter. Learned counsel for Petitioner took the plea that there was no warranty for the replacement of the body or ceiling of the vehicle and the vehicle was repaired on 28.05.2003 for which Rs.16,522/- was due to be paid by Respondent No.1 in regard to those parts which were not covered under the terms of warranty. Respondent No.1, however, did not pay this amount and falsely filed the complaint to avoid payment of the said bill. Counsel for Petitioner further stated that in compliance with the order of the District Forum, the engine has been thoroughly overhauled and repaired and there is now no defect in the vehicle. Further, since the Respondent No.1 had not filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum and it was the Petitioner and Respondents No.2 and 3 who had come in appeal, the State Commission could not give an order adverse to the Petitioner and Respondents No.2 and 3 in the absence of any appeal filed by the Respondent No.1. Therefore, on these grounds also, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

RESPONDENT No.1 confirmed that being satisfied with the order of the District Forum he had not filed any appeal before the State Commission. However, he has challenged the contention of Petitioner and RESPONDENTs No.2 and 3 that the vehicle has been repaired to his full satisfaction in compliance with the orders of the District Forum.

WE have heard learned counsel for both the parties as also Respondent No.1 in-person and have also gone through the evidence on record. It is a fact that Respondent No1. did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum and therefore, he accepted the order. It was the Petitioner and Respondents No.2 and 3 being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum who filed the appeal before the State Commission and, therefore, counsel for Petitioner is correct in contending that in the absence of an appeal filed by the Respondent No.1, the State Commission could not have passed an order adverse to the Petitioner and Respondents No.2 and 3 who have come in appeal. This is against the cardinal principles of law and therefore, the order of the State Commission is set aside. WE have carefully considered the order of the District Forum also. Since it is a well reasoned order based on factual and credible evidence produced before it, we see no reason to differ with it and restore the same. The Petitioner along with Respondent No.2 and 3 are directed to jointly and severally carry out the repairs of Respondent No.1s vehicle or provide a new vehicle to him in place of the old vehicle and also pay, Rs.1,000/- as costs within a period of six weeks failing which Respondent No.1 is put at liberty to resort to proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.