- (1.) THE above referred two appeals have been filed by the OPs/appellants against the order dated 5.5.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and directed the OPs as under : - The OPs shall jointly and severally pay the following amounts to the complainant: - I) Rs.8.00 lacs to the complainant as the depreciated value of the car in question purchased by him from the OPs as the vehicle in question has been completely damaged and is beyond repair and the same had suffered total loss in the process. II) Rs.7000/ - to the complainant towards cost of litigation. III) On receipt of Rs.8,07,000/ - from the OPs, the complainant shall return the burnt salvage of the car on the As is where is basis to the OPs. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall, jointly and severally, pay the amount of Rs.8.00 lacs along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 20.10.2009 till the date of realization besides paying Rs.7000/ - as cost of litigation. Accordingly, the complainant shall return the salvage of the burnt car to the OPs.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Tata Safari Car bearing No.HP -17 -A -4040 from OP No.2 in Feb., 2003 for Rs.11,15,000/ - for his personal use. He got all services of said car done well in time, but despite that the car was giving problem and used to get hot after 15 -20 minutes of its drive. The last service was got done from OP -2 in Feb., 2008. On 1.7.2008 at about 7.30 P.M. he along with his family, while on way to Sector 21, Chandigarh, noted that suddenly smoke started coming out from the bonnet area due to the short circuit of the wires. He immediately came out of the car and disconnected the wires and went to call a mechanic from the nearby market, but by the time he reached back, the smoke turned into flames and engulfed the whole safari vehicle. The fire brigade tenders also reached the spot and tried their best but the vehicle was totally burnt regarding which DDR No.42, dated 1.7.2008 was recorded. It was alleged that the vehicle caught fire due to the manufacturing defect in it as it was a very rare kind of incident. Even the Surveyor, as approved by the Insurance Company Er. Harish C. Gupta, who examined the vehicle, said in his report that there was manufacturing defect due to which short circuit occurred and the vehicle caught fire. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed for compensation of Rs.8 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
(3.) IN their written statement Tata Motors Limited -OP -1, took several preliminary objections viz. that the complaint is not maintainable; that the vehicle in question was purchased in Feb., 2003 whereas the date of event of fire as alleged in the complaint is dated 1.7.2008 i.e. after 5 years 4 months, that the complainant is not consumer etc. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant was using the vehicle in question as a commercial vehicle. It was submitted that the event had occurred after a period of more than 5 years and 4 months of the purchase and the car sold by the OPs served the complainant for so long, therefore, the question of any manufacturing defect in it does not arise. The warranty for the vehicle was given only for 18 months from the date of its purchase whereas the alleged event occurred on 01.07.2008. It was averred that the complainant did not make the Insurance Company as a necessary party as he had also filed the insurance claim with the Insurance Company. It was pleaded that the vehicle had performed very well and there was no manufacturing defect as alleged. Denying rest of the allegations, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. In its separate written reply, OP No.2 took almost similar pleas as were taken by OP No.1, and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.;