PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the parties present.  Sh. Snehasish Mukherjee, Proxy counsel is present for Sh. D. Bhattacharyya, counsel for the petitioner.  He seeks permission to argue on his behalf. Permission is granted. Arguments heard.  The State Commission made the following observations:-

“We find much substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant the Job Cards (Annexure-E) clearly indicate that on 28.03.2011, 12.08.2010, 30.05.2011, 28.11.2011, 03.12.2011, 18.08.2010 and 21.09.2011 the vehicle was attended in the workshop of O.P. No. 2 on the ground of accident and that on all occasions the vehicle was duly attended and repairs were effected.  While elaborating on this point the Ld. Advocate has submitted that when admittedly the vehicle had to be attended a number of times on the ground of its sustaining damages due to accident, question of proper handling of the vehicle raises a serious doubt.  So far as it relates to manufacturing defect we also found substance in the submission so put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  According to him, without an inspection and opinion by expert the point of manufacturing defect cannot be properly adjudicated in this case.  Admittedly, there is no expert opinion on the point of manufacturing defect.  From the analysis of the materials on record, we are of considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum was not justified in upholding the case of the Complainant-Respondent when admittedly, within a very short span of time the vehicle in question met with accident a number of times and that when it is clear that there is no manufacturing defect, in our opinion the Ld. District Forum  was  not  justified  in  passing  the  order  of replacement of the vehicle in question.  Similarly, we are unable to accept the proposition that there was deficiency in service at the instance of the O.Ps.”

2.      As per the State Commission order the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.  However, our attention is invited towards the letter written by M/s Tata Motors Limited dated 10.10.2010 wherein it was clearly mentioned:-

“We would like to bring to your kind notice that the rusting on the car is superficial and repairable at all places.

We therefore propose to replace all four doors and repair other…as conveyed by our dealer before.

For further clarifications please feel free to contact Mr. Dipankar Dutta, works Manager, BK Motors at 9230076601 or the undersigned at 9163324822,”

 3.     Counsel for M/s Tata Motors Ltd. Agrees to replace the four wheels and give the free service to the petitioner in removing all the defects including the oil etc., within a period of 30 days from today.  There is no need to replace all the items mentioned on page No. 41.  

There should be no any rusting in any of the part of the vehicle.  Other items do not require replacement or repairs because this could be happened during the accident and a period of four years have elapsed.

4.      The petitioner is directed to produce the car before the authorized dealer of the Respondent No. 1 alongwith this order and get the needful done, otherwise the respondent will be committing Contempt of Court.

4.      The matter stands disposed of.