Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/540

TATA MOTORS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RESERVATION DATA MAINTENANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision : 02.07.2015

 

First Appeal No. 540/2009

 

(Arising out of the order dated 21.01.2009 in Complaint Case No. 166/2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (New Delhi), Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi)

       

 

 

TATA Motors Ltd.

5, Jeevan Tara Building

Parliament Street

New Delhi-110001                               ......Appellant

                                                           

VERSUS

 

1. Reservation Data Maintenance India Pvt. Ltd.

E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place

New Delhi

(Through it’s Director, Mrs. Radha Bhatia)

 

2. Sh. S.S.Patpatia

S/o Late Sh. C.L.Patpatia

•  

Reservation Data Maintenance India Pvt. Ltd.

E-9, Connaught House, Connaught Place

New Delhi.

 

3. M/s Mirkana Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

5, Scindia House, Connaught Circus

New Delhi-110001                           …..Respondents

 

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.    Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

Judgment

 

1.      Present appeal is directed against the order dt. 21.01.2009 passed by the Ld. District Forum-VI, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.  Vide impugned orders the Ld. District Forum passed the following directions against the appellant/OP i.e. M/s TATA Motor Ltd. Commercial Vehicle Division, New Delhi.

“i. OP will pay Rs. 5,02,517/- to the Complainant as refund of the price of the car.

ii. On account of mental agony, harassment and deficiency of service OP will pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation.

iii. On account of cost of litigation, OP will pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant”.

 

2.      Facts in brief of the complaint are that the car of ‘Telco Indigo Diesel’ make was purchased by the complainant from the OP in August 2003 for an amount of Rs. 5,02,517.08/-.  The warranty period was of 1½ years.  The complainant perceived a defect in its gear box on 09.08.2003. The car was taken to OP-1 i.e. M/s Mirkana Engineering Pvt. Ltd. for a check up.  OP-1 orally informed the complainant that their existed a manufacturing defect in the gear box.  Necessary repair was carried out.  On 17.08.2003 steering of the vehicle and the air conditioner starting giving trouble.  Again certain rectifications were made.  On 24.09.2003 car was taken for first time free service.  The defect in the gear box still persisted.  Dicky of the car also started giving noise.  All these defects were mentioned in the job card on 24.09.2003.  On another service of the car on 02.02.2004, the defect in the gear box and the lever box were found. There was leakage of oil in the gear box. Noise in the gear box continued.  Car was taken for service on 26.03.2004.  The trouble in shifting of the gear still continued. Job card indicating these problems was prepared and repairs carried out on 26.03.2004.  On 22.04.2004, the car was taken for rectification of the defect in the clutch and the gear box.  After the repairs were carried out, again on 29.02.2004 the clutch developed the defect.  The contention of the complainant is that till that date the defects continued. 
3.      Defence raised by the OP is that the complainant had been getting the car repaired from unauthorised workshops.  OP admitted that the car was brought to OP-1 and gear lever noise was detected.  The defect was removed.  OP-2 further admitted that on 12.10.2004, the clutch cable was replaced.  On 05.06.2004 the car was brought with the complaint of gear lever noise, front side noise and wiper bottle check.  OP denied if there was any noise in the dicky.
4.      Arguments have been addressed at length by the counsel for the appellant Sh. Shankar Kumar Jha, Advocate and the counsel for the OP-1 Ms. Manju Mehta, Advocate. 
5.      During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the respondent Ms. Manju Mehta, Advocate stated that the complainant does not press for relief of payment of Rs. 5,02,517.08/- towards refund of the price of the car.  Ms. Manju Mehta further stated that the complainant would be satisfied in case he is paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lacs.
6.      Admittedly the car in question is in possession of the complainant. Ld. trial forum fell in grave error when it did not take into account the salvage of the vehicle while directing the refund of the price of the vehicle.  Be that as it may, as per submissions made by the counsel for the complainant, we are now confronted with the sole question as to whether the complainant is entitled to the amount of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs as awarded by the Ld. District Forum.  The vehicle in question was taken to the workshop on eleven occasions during the period between 07.08.2003 and 12.10.2004.  The trouble relating to the gear box found mention in various job cards.  The defect in the gear box could not be rectified, despite the fact that the same was attended to several times.  It is not the case of the OP-2/appellant that the car was taken to the workshop without any genuine complaint on any occasion.  We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs as awarded by the Ld. District Forum is not on the higher side.  The orders dt. 21.01.2009 passed by the District Forum are, therefore, modified to the extent that the OP-2/appellant i.e. M/s Tata Motor Pvt. Ltd. shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 2 Lacs towards compensation for inconvenience, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant.  The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of sixty days from today failing which interest @ 18% p.a. shall be leviable.
7.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to Record Room.
8.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

(S C Jain)

• Member

 

6.