ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. It is the say of the complainant Mr. Lachia Setty that he had purchased Indigo LX Euro vehicle from the dealer by paying a sum of Rs. 5,58,913 on 10.2.2004. Complainant after taking delivery of the said vehicle found from day one that he was not happy with the performance of the vehicle due to intolerable noise, defect in the clutch system and gear box in the transmission system. Immediately, he brought these facts to the notice of the dealer who did not respond properly. On 28.2.2004 the complainant took the car to the garage of the dealer who attended to the said complaint but there was not much change in the said defect. Though the complainant brought the car for repairs 3-4 times job cards were not opened. As the defect of rattling noise from the gear box and clutch persisted on 14.3.2004 complainant took car to the dealer’s garage wherein the job card was opened and efforts were made to attend to the defect. The vehicle was delivered on 15.3.2004 but again the complainant felt that the defects had not been removed. Subsequently, the complainant took the vehicle on 1.4.2004, 7.4.2004 but there was no improvement. Accordingly, he had no other choice but to surrender the card along with relevant documents. The officers of the opposite parties though admitted the defects noticed in the vehicle, contended that they were rectified and forced the complainant to take back the vehicle. During the test drive the complainant had shown to the Service Manager and Custom Support Officer of the manufacturer about the rattling noise from the gear box and defect in the clutch etc. Accordingly, he had no choice but to surrender the vehicle at dealer’s workshop on 21.4.2004 and file complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties manufacturer and the dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 7,11,036 together with interest etc.
2. The opposite parties filed a lengthy version denying allegations. The substance of their defence is that the said noise and sound is the characteristic of the vehicle and they have changed pressure plate and releaser bearing free of cost at the insistence of the complainant even though these parts do not suffer from any defect. They contended that there was no manufacturing defect at all. The opposite parties have also extended their helping hand by extending the warranty period for 18 months with an assurance that they will attend to the defects in future also.
3. The District Forum observed that the complainant had taken the vehicle to the workshop of the dealer on many occasions and finally on 1.4.2004 who had retained the said vehicle for a week for repairs which speaks of the serious defects in the engine of the vehicle. Complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 7.4.2004 but noticed that the irritating noise, rattling etc. persisted. Accordingly, he had surrendered the vehicle along with records of the car on 21.4.2004 to the dealer. After assessing the evidence of the case going through the entire record the District Forum was satisfied that there was a defect in the mechanism of the vehicle. Despite repeated complaints and taking the car to the workshop of the dealer the defects were not rectified which amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum after giving detailed reasoning allowed the complaint in part and directing the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with brand new vehicle Indigo LX Euro and deliver the same within four weeks of the date of the order failing which refund the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs. 5,58,913 together with interest @ 10% per annum from 21.4.2004 till its realisation along with cost of Rs. 3,000.
4. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission held that “the very object of purchasing a new car is to have a comfortable journey. In the instant case, the main grievance of the complainant is that there is an unusual noise in the Gear Box. No person while travelling in a car would like to hear any unusual sound similar to the sound produced by a Bus or Lorry from his car. Further, unless there is a defect in a new car no person would come forward to redeliver the vehicle within a short period of one or two months. Therefore, in our view, the findings recorded by the District Forum are based on assessment of evidence and the said findings, in our view, do not require interference by this Commission. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed”.
5. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the manufacturer and dealer have filed this revision petition before us. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that vehicle was purchased on 10.2.2004 and on 28.2.2004 the respondent has written letter to the Manager, Tata Engineering/Tata Motors Ltd. c/o Concorde Motors stating that his car has major clutch releaser bearing noise while moving in 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear and he has requested deputation of senior and experienced mechanic or engineer to find out the noise and rectify the same. The job cards at pages 41 and 43 indicate that he has made a complaint for checking of noise from gear lever and to check clutch. He has written a letter on 19.4.2004 to the Manager, Concorde Motors Ltd. stating that the car was taken for check up 3 to 4 times and finally clutch plate, clutch bearing and clutch pressure plate were replaced. He alleged that even after replcing these parts the sound in the clutch remained.
6. This was replied by the dealer in the following words:
We have inspected your vehicle completely and road tested for the reported complaint, as we expressed when we met you at your residence, your vehicle is in perfectly good condition. We request you to kindly make arrangement to take the delivery of your vehicle at your earliest.
7. He further submitted that the complaint which was stated by the complainant was the characteristic of the car and there is no manufacturing defect and the customer support engineer along with dealer have thoroughly investigated and confirmed that car is in perfect condition. Manufacturer has extended the warranty for another 18 months after manufacturer’s warranty for 18 months on free of cost basis. This position was repeated in subsequent letters by the dealer as well as by the manufacturer.
8. The complainant boasts that he owns several sophisticated vehicles like Rolls Royce, Mercedez Benz, Dodge, Dissoto, Studi Baker; Cheverolet, Pegot, Opel Astra, Toyota Corolla. It would be unfair to compare Indigo car with such expensive car. He brought to our notice Rule 122 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules which lays down the noise standards in vehicle.
Category of Vehicles Maximum Permissible
Noise levels
All passenger cars, all petrol 82 dB(A)
driven three-wheelers and
diesel driven two wheelers.
Findings:
9. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice maximum permissible noise level of passenger car to be 82 dB(A), as per Central Motor Vehicles Rules, this was neither urged before the District Forum or the State Commission nor there is a whisper about it in the revision petition filed before us. Secondly, he has not produced any record before us to show that noise level of the car in question was less than 82 dB(A) from any Competent Authority.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that State Commission has not considered anyone of his submissions in the Memorandum of Appeal. In this connection he brought to our notice judgment of Supreme Court stating that order of the State Commission is not a speaking order. Accordingly, it is vitiated. In HVPNL v. Mahavir , it was ordered by the State Commission of Haryana that:
We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN-appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal.
11. The Supreme Court held that it is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher Courts would not know whether State Commission had applied its mind to the case. Accordingly the Apex Court had set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the matter to the State Commission. The judgment quoted by the learned Counsel is distinguishable, as against the fourline order passed by State Commission of Haryana, the order passed by State Commission, Karnataka runs into four pages with seven paragraphs and these are not comparable. By any stretch of imagination we cannot construe that State Commission has not applied its mind while passing this order. The operating portion of the order has been quoted (supra).
12. The undisputed facts of case are that the complainant had purchased Indigo LX Euro vehicle from Concorde Motors Limited an authorised dealer of Tata Motors which manufactures these vehicles and that the buyer had frequently complained to the dealer about the defects in the clutch system and gear box in the transmission system and further that the vehicle was taken to the workshop of the dealer time and again for the repair for which job cards were opened. At no point of time purchaser has given a satisfaction report after repair of the car. There were occasions when the car was not returned after repair on the same day e.g. car was taken to the dealer on 1.4.2004 and was returned on 7.4.2004.
13. Further it is not in dispute that the complainant after being fed up with the defects in the car especially the rattling sound and unbearable sound surrendered the vehicle along with records on 21.4.2004 to the workshop of the dealer i.e., within three months of the purchase of the car.
14. The other point to be noted is that purchaser belongs to a family which owns different makes of cars right from Rolls Royce, Mercedez Benz, Dodge, Dissoto, Studi Baker, Cheverolet, Pegot, Opel Astra, Toyota Corrolla, Maruti Esteem etc. The opposite party have denied knowledge about the ownership of different types of cars of the family members of complainant but they have not aksed for any strict proof. According to us complainant is a knowledgeable person having adequate knowledge of functioning and mechanism of different types of cars. The complainant has sent complaints to the dealer as well as the manufacturer time and again before he filed complaint in the District Forum. The following extract of the letter addressed by the Tata Motors to the complainant baffles us:
We would like to give an assurance that the complaint which you have stated is the characteristic of the car and there is no manufacturing defect. We have thoroughly investigated and confirm to you that the car is in a perfect condition. To make you further confident on the product, we would like to give you the extended warranty for another 18 more months after manufacturers warranty of 18 months on free of cost basis.
15. When the manufacturer and dealer found that the complainant who was fed up about the defects in the car was not willing to take back the vehicle, the manufacturer has written this letter whereas letter written by the dealer which is seven days earlier, extract of which is given below does not speak of the sound which is the characterstic of the car which shows that the dealer and manufacturer are not at the same wavelength.
As we declared through our letter dated 29th April, 2004 and 20th May, 2004, we would like to emphsize once again that, there is no manufacturing defect noticed in your vehicle and vehicle is in perfectly good condition.
16. The case has been examined thoroughly by the District Forum and after hearing the parties and going through the records passed a well reasoned order. This has been further scrutinized by the State Commission which has passed the speaking order confirming the order of the District Forum.
17. Accordingly, we do not see any material irreguarity or jurisdictional illegality in the order pased by the lower Fora warranting our intervention under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.