Engine Malfunction: NCDRC Directs Tata Motors And 2 Dealers To Pay Rs 5 Lakh As Compensation

The Revision Petition was filed by the Complainant to challenge the Bihar State Commission’s Order which had set aside the District Consumer Commission, Rohtas Order.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant bought a Tata Indigo Mazda QZ car using a loan from Tata Motors for regular use of his family members for medical treatment. However, he faced issues with the car's accelerator and took it to Pirana Motors and Kumar Distributors, but they didn't address the problem and returned the car without explanation.

Due to these recurring problems, he suspected that Tata Motors had sold him a car with a defective engine. The car didn't prove beneficial, and the Complainant had to rely on rented vehicles for his family's transportation needs. In September 2011, the Complainant visited Guinea Motors, where they acknowledged a problem with the car's pickup and made some changes under warranty. However, the defect persisted. He was informed about troubles with the engine for which he handed over the vehicle to them for repairs. The car was under warranty until January 2012 and was given to Guinea Motors before that date. However, in February 2012, Guinea Motors informed the Complainant that Tata Motors had denied responsibility for the defects.

The Complainant alleged collusion between the Opposite Parties, suspecting that they sold him a car with a faulty engine. The Complainant was asked to bear 33% of the repair expenses and ended up paying Rs. 50,000 out of the total Rs. 80,000, which exceeded the expected share. Despite the expenses incurred on repairs, the defects persisted, and another issue of engine oil leakage was discovered after the car was returned by Guinea Motors. Consequently, the Complainant took the car back to Guinea Motors in October 2012.

A Legal Notice was sent and subsequently, the Complaint was filed before the District Commission for Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the losses incurred.

The District Commission allowed the Complaint while observing that the car purchased by the Complainant did not come in any use, rather it became a trouble for removing the defects causing financial, mental and physical loss to the Complainant. It directed all the Opposite Parties to pay Rs 5,00,000/- to the Complainant. An appeal was preferred by all the Opposite Parties to the Bihar State Commission.

The State Commission set aside the decision of the District Commission and held that the Complainant had not taken his vehicle for the necessary free servicing, which is typically required for a new vehicle. The allegations regarding the defects were related to the car's pickup and a minor issue of engine oil percolation. Further, The State Commission noted that the issues related to acceleration and minor issues in engine oil could not be attributed to manufacturing defects, and there was no technical expert report to determine if the vehicle indeed had any manufacturing defects. Additionally, it was mentioned that the vehicle had been driven for over 23,000 kilometers after its purchase. Considering these factors, the State Commission found no basis or supporting evidence on record to justify the Complainant's claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.

Observations of NCDRC:

The NCDRC allowed the Revision Petition and reversed the State Commission's decision while affirming the District Commission's ruling. The NCDRC determined that the Opposite Parties failed to provide evidence to support their claim that the malfunction in the vehicle's engine was due to any action or negligence on the part of the Complainant. Moreover, they could not demonstrate that the issue fell outside the terms of the warranty that were applicable at the relevant time.

The NCDRC disagreed with the State Commission’s characterization of the defects as “minor” as it overlooked a crucial document issued by Guinea Motors, which claimed to act under Tata Motors' instructions to the Complainant. In this document, Tata Motors acknowledged that the car's engine required overhauling due to the ongoing problem of poor pick-up, as consistently reported by the Complainant. Notably, this letter was issued by Guinea Motors 16 months after the complainant purchased the vehicle, during which the problem persisted despite several attempts to rectify it.

The NCDRC found it significant that the complainant noticed the defect shortly after purchasing the car and promptly returned it to Pirana Motors merely three days after taking delivery. This fact indicates that any presumed dust entry inside the engine if it existed at all, could not have been caused by the complainant. Typically, a vehicle's engine is enclosed and protected, making it highly unlikely for dust or external elements to enter within just three days of usage.

Thus, the Bench found it unjustifiable to insist on the complainant paying for the vehicle repairs on a charge basis. The complainant had already delivered the car for repairs while it was still under warranty. In conclusion, the Opposite Parties were unable to make a satisfactory case for charging the Complainant for the repairs when the vehicle was still covered by warranty.

Case Title: Suresh Prasad Gupta vs. M.D Tata Motors & 2 Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order