RAJNISH R. KOTHADIA vs ZAHEER B. WADIA & ORS.

Mr. Rajnish R. Kothadiya, the complainant purchased a Tata Sumo Ex+ vehicle manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd., opposite party No. 3. It transpired that the engine of the said vehicle was consuming more oil and there was leakage. A promise was given to the complainant that if the said defect persists even after 3 servicing, the engine would be replaced. However, the needful was not done and a complaint was filed with the District Forum. The petitioner kept the vehicle with Mr. Jahir B. Wadia, General Manager, B. U. Bhandari Auto Ltd., the dealer through whom the car had been purchased and standing in the sterling workshop, who have been arrayed as opposite parties No. 1 and 2, respectively.

A complaint was filed with the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered for replacement of the new engine and payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.55,000/- against opposite parties 1 and 3 jointly and severally.

Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. The State Commission came to the conclusion that on the three servicing as per the job card, there was no consumption of oil and there was no complaint about oil leakage at crank shaft rear oil seal and it was attended. It also held that there is no manufacturing defect.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Our attention was invited towards the report of the expert, which runs as follows: "As per enquiry of honorable consumer court Solapur, for the inspection report of Tata sumo bearing following details, regarding engine oil consumption. Same is submitting as below.

Vehicle was reported to our workshop on date 30/05/2007. After inspection we found followings:

Oil leakage found from oil sump packing and oil line (cylinder block to alternator)

Air filter found dusty,- Lot of dust found in air filter.

Seal of speedometer cable was missing. Photographs are attached for reference. After rectification of oil leakage from oil sump and oil line (by replacing oil line) carried out following steps.

- Placed the vehicle on level ground.

- Removed engine oil completely from the sump and replaced oil filter by new one.

- Topped up the fresh engine oil up to its oil sump capacity.

- Warmed up the engine up to 75-80 degree Celsius

- Drained out the complete engine oil in clean vessel

- Weighed the vessel alongwith oil, which was found=7.134 Kgs.

- Refilled the weighed oil into oil sump without spilling any oil

- Drove the vehicle for 641 kms under normal operating condition.

- Immediately after the test drive, place the vehicle at same spot and drain out the complete engine oil in same vessel.

- Weighed the vessel alongwith oil, which was found = 6.812 Kgs. As per standard formula for calculating engine oil consumption we found engine oil consumption as below.

Actual engine oil consumption = 0.57 lits/1000 Kms.

The inspection of vehicle done in respect of Mr. Rajnish Kothadia Mr. R.C. Konapure (Advocate of Mr. Kothadia) Mr. Laxman Gaikawad (Driver of Mr. Kothadia) Vehicle was driven for trial by Mr. Laxman Gaikwad."

There is record of repairs carried out which is also reproduced as follows:

Date Odometer reading (km) Repair Order No. Particulars of Repair Serving Dealer''s Signature & Stamp

29/06/04 16015 2297

Checked and found external leakages from oil pipe (volume pump to crankshaft and oil sump drain plug. Rectified the oil leakages.

Checked the H.E.O.C. by Weight Method and found O.K. Vehicle kept under observation and called after 2000 kms. (at 17015 kms.) for checking.

06/08/04 18139 2653 Checked the H.E.O.C. by Weight Method and found 1.337 kg. oil less in 2124 kms.

14/08/04 8778 2735 2.5 lit. Eng. Oil top up

Our attention was also invited towards the following conditions: "2. EXCESSIVE ENGINE OIL CONSUMPTION igh engine oil consumption may also lead to overhauling of the engine but before proceeding to overhauling, check following points:

Make sure that there is absolutely zero external leakage of the oil (i.e. from the camshaft oil seal, crankshaft oil seal, oil sump gasket, oil pump gasket, cylinder head cover gasket etc.

Ensure that oil separator condition is OK & no leakage in the circuit.

If no external leakage is found, determine the exact engine oil consumption, as per following procedure."

There is report dated 23.6.2004 of B. U. Bhandari Auto Ltd., its relevant extract is important, which is reproduced as under: "All the necessary repairs have been carried out, and affected parts were replaced under warranty, said details already explained to you during your personal visit.

We are sure your car is giving you satisfactory performance. The inconvenience caused is regretted and we wish you happy motoring for a long time in your favorite Tata Sumo."

In the letter dated 25.6.2004, the following extract is germane to the present controversy. "Second time again car was attended on 23/0304 vide our J.C. No. 11247 at 7895 kms complaint being oil leakage. We have checked thoroughly and rectified the same. The same complaint was reported again. As requested earlier you have not sent your car within 1000-1200 kms. Your car reported for the 3 rd servicing at 12350 kms vide our J. C. No. 12430 dated 03/-5/04 with oil filled at the local garage. As per our policy we do not entertain cars attended outside and neither can be covered under warranty.

As per the telecom with the undersigned on June 25 th , you have collected the car on 16/06/04 and drove 1500 kms till date. You have found that oil level is gone down by 21/2 lts, oil consumption is high. Recently we had confirmed engine work has been done on your car. And under observation requested you to bring car for oil level checking within 1000-1200 kms."

Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention towards the decision of this Commission in case of Bhagwan Das Agarwal vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. & Anr., revision petition No. 1927 of 2007 decided on 13 th of March, 2009 wherein it was observed: "Minor pit-falls noticed in the engine and also excessive consumption of Mobil Oil could not set to be the fall-out of the inherent manufacturing defect in the engine and reliance placed by the State Commission on decision of National Commission in Swaraz Mazda Ltd. V/s Chakkapore & Anr. (II) (2005 CPJ) (NC) cannot be said to be out of context."

Facts against the complainant.

i. It must be borne in mind that more than 11 years have already elapsed when the above said vehicle was purchased. The petitioner did not face any difficulty during the last more than 11 years. He is driving the vehicle since then.

ii. It is not permissible to get the vehicle checked from local garage, it is also not permissible to entertain any car attended outside and the consumer cannot claim compensation during the warranty.

iii. There is no major defect in the manufacture of the vehicle.

iv. According to the report of the expert, there was no excess oil consumption. However, there was problem of oil leakage. This appears to be not a manufacturing defect as such. However, it stands proved that there was oil leakage.

i. The complainant had to visit the dealer for the oil consumption but the record reveals that the said defects were rectified. There is no evidence that the petitioner faced any further problem in the future.

The revision petition is without merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed.