NCDRC NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2004 (From the order dated 21.04.04 in Compl. No. 77/2002 of the State Commission, Orissa) Tata Motors Ltd., Formerly Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneshwar - 751014 Orissa Appellant Vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Radhadamdharpur, P.O. Radhakishorepur District Cuttack, Orissa Respondent BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. N. KAPOOR, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. B.K. TAMINI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate Ms. Astha Tyagi, Advocate Ms. Reetu Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Suresh Tripathi, Advocate DATED: - 5th July 2006 O R D E R
PER MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER :-
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 28.2.97.
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 Office 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 25.8.98
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 Ld. 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 25.8.98 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 9.9.98 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 9.9.98 and 18.8.2000, the warranty except for the engine stood expired
on 18.2.99 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 warranty period. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant
wishes to rely upon letter dated 8.4.98 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 km. We are afraid we see no merit in this
contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, for the simple reason, that
document on which he wishes to rely is of 8.4.98 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 year 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 25.8.98
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.
.J.
(S.N.
KAPOOR)
PRESIDING
MEMBER
(B.K.
TAIMNI)
MEMBER
RS/