SHIVAM MOTORS P LTD vs VIRENDRA SINGH KATIYAR

SINCE, both these appeals arise from the same order dated 2. 9. 2005 in complaint No. 25/2003 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter called ''district Forum'' for short ). They are being disposed of by this common order.

INDISPUTABLY, the opposite party No. 1 M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (appellant in appeal No. 435 of 2005) was a dealer of Tata Spacio Passenger Vehicle. However, the dealership of M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. having been terminated from December, 2002, the opposite party No. 2 M/s. National Garage (appellant in appeal No. 436 of 2005) as its successor. The opposite party No. 3 Telco Customers Support is the manufacturer of the vehicle while opposite party No. 4 Hemant Puranik is the Manager of O. P.-3 (M/s. Telco Customers Support and Hemant Puranaik is the Manager of O. P. 3 (M/s. Telco Customers Support and Hemant Puranik are appellant Nos. 2 and 3 in appeal No. 436/05 ). It is not in dispute that the complainant Virendra Singh Katiyar purchased a Tata Spacio Passenger vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-13-0151 on 4. 12. 2000, for a consideration of Rs. 3,97,297 paid by him to respondent No. 1 M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. Warranty given for engine was for a period of 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle or maximum run of vehicle upto 3 lac kms. , whichever occurred earlier. Rest parts of the vehicle were warranted for 18 months from the date of sale of the vehicle, irrespective of the distance covered. Copy of the warranty has been filed in this appeal.

The complainant averred that there was breakdown of the chassis of the vehicle after one year and the same was to be replaced. However, the O. P. 1 replaced it after great efforts of the complainant Virendra Singh and charged Rs. 1,010 therefor. It was further averred by the complainant that there was also crack in the ceiling and panel of the vehicle. However, dealer M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. did not attend to the complaint in that regard, and only welded tin plate in the ceiling of the vehicle. It was further averred that there was breakdown in the engine of the vehicle in June 2003, within the period of warranty and the vehicle stopped functioning. The complaints by complainant Virendra Singh were not attended to by the dealer M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. and the complainant was directed to take the vehicle to the O. P.-2 M/s. National Garage. M/s. National Garage partly carried out the repairs of the vehicle and told the complainant that the remaining defects would be rectified by the dealer M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. The O. P.-4 Regional Manager, on being contacted by the complainant Virendra Singh, assured that the vehicle will be got repaired by new dealer M/s. National Garage. However, the vehicle was not so repaired, despite efforts by the complainant and despite taking vehicle in the Camp organized by M/s. Telco Customers Support on 17. 5. 2003 at Raigarh. It was further averred that neither M/s. National Garage nor M/s. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. repaired the vehicle, as a result of which he approached the District Forum and filed the complaint. The complainant claimed that he be provided a new Tata Spacio Passenger Vehicle or new seal pack engine be fitted and the compensation of Rs. 50,000 be awarded.

THE complaint was resisted by the O. Ps. O. P. 1, M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. , in its written version, averred that chassis was repaired free of cost and Rs. 1,010 was charged, for items not covered by warranty such as rubber, bush, clamp, etc. The O. P. 1 denied that there was any complaint by the complainant regarding breakdown in the engine in June, 2003. It was further averred that since the dealership of M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. was terminated by principal Telco Customers Support w. e. f. 16. 9. 2002, hence, its successor M/s. National Garage was liable to rectify defects occurring thereafter in the vehicle. The O. P. 2 M/s. National Garage in its separate reply averred that there was no warranty for the replacement of the body or ceiling of the vehicle. They also averred that the complainant never contacted the O. P. 2 M/s. National Garage, for the repairs of the vehicle. It was stated that vehicle was repaired on 28. 5. 2003. It was further averred that repairs charge for Rs. 16,522 were recoved from the complainant in regard to those parts which were not covered under the terms of the warranty.

THE O. Ps. 3 and 4 Manufacture and Regional Manager also resisted the complaint. It was averred that on 19. 5. 2003, the complainant left the vehicle for repairs in M/s. National Garage, but the complainant did not choose to pay the bills for repairs. It was further averred that bill was for those parts which are not covered under the terms of the warranty. It was futher averred that the complainant has filed the complaint in order to avoid payment of the said bill of Rs. 16,522 It was further averred that hte complainant has filed the complaint in order to avoid payment of the said bill of Rs. 16,522. The District Forum in the impugned order held that crack in the chassis of the vehicle and the breakdown in the engine, occurred within the warranty period of 18 months. The vehicle was not properly repaired. It was also observed by the District Forum that there were recurrent defects in the vehicle and the chassis and engine were faulty. Therefore, O. Ps. were directed to replace the engine and a seal pack engine for the vehicle was directed to be supplied to the complainant. In the alternative a new Tata Spacio Passenger vehicle was directed to be given to him. Cost of Rs. 1,000 was also imposed on the O. Ps. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

IT is clear from the averments of the complainant in the complaint, that a new Tata Specio Passenger Vehicle for consideration of Rs. 3,79,279 was purchased by him from the dealer M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the dealership of the said dealer was terminated by letter dated 16. 9. 2002, from December 2002. It also appears that defects in the chassis of the vehicle as well as cracks in the ceiling was reported by the complainant to the O. P. 1 M/s. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. It further appears that defects as above have not been taken seriously and they were not properly rectified. Similar is the situation, regarding breakdown in the engine which occurred in June 2003 as alleged by the complainant.

THEREFORE, 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 aproached the dealer M/s. Shivam 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 give 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 the O. P.-1 M/s. Shivam Motor (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 O. P. 1 and also O. P. 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 O. P. 1, which was manufactured by O. P. 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 O. Ps. 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.

IN the circumstances, it appears just and proper to direct that the O. P. Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly and severally be liable to refund the price paid by the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle, with the condition of that complainant shall return the vehicle to the O. P. Nos. 1 and 3 on ''as is where is basis''. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of with the following directions and modification in the impugned order: the O. P. Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly and severally be liable to pay to the complainant/appellant a sum of Rs. 3,98,000 (Rupee three lacs ninety-eight thousand) (after rounding of the price of Rs. 3,97,297), subject to the vehicle in question being returned by the complainant to the O. Ps. on ''as is where is basis'' and the O. Ps. shall be entitled to repossess the said vehicle. The amount as above shall be payable within a period of 2 months, failing which the interest @ 9% p. a. shall also be payable thereon, from the date of default. The cost of this litigation including that of the complaint as well as of this appeal shall also be jointly and severally paid by the O. P. Nos. 1 to 3 to the complainant/appellant, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand) only. Appeals disposed of.