Rajeev Kapoor S/O J P Kapoor vs Joshi Auto Zone Pvt Ltd

BOTH the fora below have decided the case against the petitioner/complainant, Dr. Rajeev Kapoor. On 30.03.2010, Dr. Rajeev Kapoor, purchased a Tata Manza Indigo Car from Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., OP1, an authorized Dealer of Tata Motors Ltd., OP2, which provided after sale service as per the Manual Booklet (Annexure C -4). The vehicle carried warranty of two years, from the date of purchase, i.e., 30.03.2010 to 29.03.2012 or 75000 kms whichever was earlier. The said warranty was further extended for two years or for 1,50,000 kms, whichever was earlier, by OP1.

ON 18.07.2012, the vehicle was sent to Banarsi Dass Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., the authorized service station, OP3. It transpired that Turbo of the vehicle needed replacement for better performance. The Turbo was changed after getting approval from Global Administration Services Pvt., OP5.

THEREAFTER , on 06.08.2012, the complainant, along with his brother and two daughters was going to Rohtak. When he crossed Sonepat, the vehicle stopped. The Company was duly intimated. Sawan Motors Pvt. Ltd., OP4 was having a service station, the vehicle was sent to it. The complainant received a bill/invoice dated 07.08.2012 from OP3 in the name of Ashok Kumar Talwar, with addition of one item at Sl.No.6 along with remarks "standard check back compression and blow bye refused by customer". OP4 after inspecting the vehicle, sent another bill in the sum of Rs. 1,34,749/ - to OP5 for approval observing that Turbo charger and engine were seized due to oil pump failure. The claim was made before OP4 but it repudiated the same. The claim was rejected as the Surveyor, Sh. S. Arora had observed that since there was dust entry inside the engine on pistons, bore, manifold, hoses, etc., therefore any failure arising out of it was outside the scope of extended warranty policy. The complainant contended that the reason for repudiation is dust inside the engine was not mentioned in the terms and conditions of exclusion clauses. The complainant was offered 10% discount on the parts and was requested to bear the expenses of Rs. 65,000/ - vide letter dated 12.09.2012. The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum claiming that the letters/vehicle should be got withdrawn and the vehicle in question should be repaired free of cost as per the extended warranty. Rs. 7,000/ - towards taxi charges, Rs. 4,000/ - towards travel charges, Rs. 12,000/ - on account of six visits to OP4 and Rs. 5,00,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and harassment were claimed.

OPS 2 and 6 contended that the manufacturers'' warranty had already expired on 29.03.2012. The vehicle had run about 1,31,346 kms. It was denied that Rs. 5,250/ - was received from the complainant for providing the said extended warranty terms which was the product of the OP 5, an independent entity. The vehicle was sent to OP3 for carrying out the job mentioned in the tax invoice and had charged Rs. 27,490/ - for the same.

OP 3 stated that Turbo charger of the vehicle was found to be defective. The complainant was told that the vehicle had run up to 1,31,364 kms over a period of two years'' and four months and therefore the engine required overhauling but he did not bother. OP 4 further stated that the vehicle in question was brought to its workshop and an estimate of Rs. 1,34,749/ - was prepared. However, OP5 vide email dated 07.08.2012 rejected to cover the repair under the extended warranty period.

OP 5 in its written statement averred that the owner was required to follow service schedule and certain guidelines for smooth and better performance of the vehicle. It was contended that that due improper maintenance and servicing of the vehicle the warranty seized to exist. It was stated that the Turbo was required to be replaced due to normal wear and tear in the vehicle.

THE complainant failed to produce the warranty booklet in evidence before the District Forum. During the extended warranty period, on 18.07.2012, the complainant had made payment of Rs. 27,490/ - to OP3 while getting it repaired. The complainant did not file any affidavit. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.

THE State Commission too dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant.

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. OP2 has no role to play in this case. It is the manufacturer simplicitor and no allegation of claim was made against it. The main allegation has been made against OP5. OP 5 did not appear despite service. However, the fora below have found that the warranty booklet was not produced in evidence before the District Forum, by the complainant. The fora below also found favour with the argument that the extended warranty period was a contract of insurance recommended by the manufacturer sold by the authorized representative of Tata Motors and operated by OP5. Again, dust entered could not be said to be ''normal wear and tear''. Dr. Rajeev Kapoor did not file any affidavit.

ALL these arguments are devoid of merit. OP5 had given the consent to replace the Turbo and the same was replaced on 31.07.2012 during the extended warranty. The complainant faced the problem again on 06.08.2012. Because the warranty had been extended, therefore, it was the duty of the OP5 to repair the same during the extended warranty period. The rectified Turbo before one week rectified earlier, again, became defective. OP 5 has failed to honour its commitment. The OPs have made lame excuses. Unsavoury volte face made by it does not solve the problem.

IT must be borne in mind that OP5 has clearly stated that this a normal case of wear and tear. We are unable to concur with this contention. The Turbo was replaced on 31.07.2012 and within a span of six days, it again became defective. By no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said to be a case of ''normal wear and tear''.

THE vehicle is lying with the OP 4 and stationed there for the last two years. It has claimed Rs. 1,34,749/ - from OP5. The counsel for the petitioner claimed parking charges @ Rs. 18,000/ - per month. We allow those charges but the same will be recovered from OP5. OP 4 is directed to handover the vehicle without defect to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will have to pay penalty @ Rs. 500/ - per day, till compliance.

THE revision petition stands disposed of.