TATA MOTORS LTD. vs SURESH KUMAR MISHRA

APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

UNDISPUTED facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had purchased a truck manufactured by the appellant on 28.2.1997. This carried a warranty clause, which reads as follows: "1. This warranty, for the vehicle as a whole shall be for 18 months from the date of sale of the vehicle by our works or our Regional Sales Officer or our Sales Establishments or our authorized dealers or 1,50,000 kms or 2,000 hours of operation, whichever is earlier. Tata Cummins engine fitted in the above vehicle shall, however be warranted, for two years from the date of sale of the vehicle by our Works or our Regional Sales office or our Sales Establishments or our authorized dealers or 2,00,000 kms or 3,000 hours of operation, whichever is earlier."

It was stated that the vehicle started developing problem from the very beginning and as a result of which the engine of the said vehicle was replaced on 25.8.1998 and subsequently despite this replacement, the vehicle was still developing problems relating to engine and other parts. Since it was not getting proper service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission with a prayer to replace the vehicle as also demanding a compensation of Rs. 18,52,000 under various heads. The State Commission after hearing the parties directed the appellant to replace the engine in question and make the vehicle road worthy. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 60,000 being the wages of driver as also the helper. It was also directed that vehicle should give satisfactory performance upto 5,00,000 km. from the date it is made road worthy. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that the engine of the said vehicle was replaced on 25.8.1998 and in our view, it would deem to carry a fresh warranty for another two years, i.e., upto August 2000. As per the material brought on record, the vehicle was taken for repair on 9.9.1998 for injector seal pedal adjustment and again on 18.8.2000 for engine oil seal and lastly on 16.4.2001. We have no doubt in our mind that as on 9.9.1998 and 18.8.2000, the "warranty" except for the engine stood expired on 18.2.1999 whereas in respect of engine it would be deemed to have been extended upto August 2000. There is nothing on record to show us that anything wrong was noticed in the engine. The first time such a complaint arose was in April 2001 when ''engine mounting'' was replaced. Firstly, the ''engine mounting'' cannot be said to be part of engine. Be that as it may this is done after the warranty period, hence, the appellants cannot be held responsible for taking cure of any defect after the warrnaty period. The learned Counsel appearing for the complainant wishes to rely upon letter dated 8.4.1998 para 3 of which reads as under: "3. We confirm that Cummins engine fitted with your vehicle will give you a satisfactory performance upto 5,00,000 kms. of its operation and we will stand with you for any kind of repairs/changes on this engine free of cost during this period."

HE wishes to emphasise that the warranty should go upto running the vehicle upto 5,00,000 kms whereas as on 16.4.2001, the vehicle had run only 1,60,125 kms. We are afraid we see no merit in this contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant, for the simple reason, that document on which he wishes to rely is of 8.4.1998 and it is admitted position that as per the terms of the warranty issued at the time of the sale of the vehicle as a whole carried a warranty for one and a half years and the engine carried warranty for 2 years or 2,00,000 kms or 3,000 hours, whichever is earlier. In this case, ''earlier'' stage was reached after expiry of 2 years of fitting of the new engine, i.e., on 25.8.1998 in view of the fact that the new engine was fitted on that date. Any letter issued before that date would have relevance, only for the old engine and not for the new engine. The new engine will have the same warranty as were applicable at the time of the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant, period of which had expired in August, 2000. In the aforementioned circumstances, when the respondent/complainant has not been able to show us any defect in engine within extended warranty period, i.e., upto August 2000, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

NO order as to costs. Appeal allowed.