In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I

CDF-1/Case no. 550 / 2003

Arun Kumar Ghosh,

10/V, Atul Sur Road, Kolkata-15                                                 …….     Complainant

vs.

Tata Enginering Customer Support

Passenger Car Business Unit,

K.D. Block, Pimpri, Pune-411018  and others                            .……  Opposite parties

Present :  Sri A.K. Das,  President

                Sri L.K. Banerjee,  Member

Order no.   18   dt. 05.04.2007

            The complainant has approached this forum for redressal of his grievances that o.p. no.3 had sold the vehicle to the complainant on 15.1.03. In the invoice engine no. was mentioned 483 DL 51 AXZ 701842 but the plate bearing engine no.483 DL 47 AXZ 701842 was affixed with the engine. The complainant repeatedly requested on 5.6.03, 16.7.03, 19.9.03 the o.p. nos. 1 to 3 to rectify the wrong. But no positive action was taken. The complainant further alleged that the car/engine was consuming more mobil than in normal case.

          O.p. nos.1 to 3 contested the consumer complaint contending interalia that the registering authority had registered the vehicle with correct engine number as mentioned in the dealers invoice. The registration certificate was also issued by the authority with correct engine number. While delivering the vehicle to the dealer unintentionally the engine number plate 488-DL-47-AXZ-701842 was fixed on the vehicle. On receiving the intimation from the complainant, o.p.no.3 by the letter dt.7.7.03 replied stating the correct position and further informed the petitioner/complainant about the corrective action would be taken for replacing the incorrect number plate on the engine. Complainant knowing fully well about the facts did not produce the vehicle to do the needful instead the complainant opted to file the fruitless proceeding against the o.ps. in order to pressurised for untenable reliefs.

          It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the o.p. nos.1 to 3 that they are agreeable to reconcile discrepancies appearing in the engine as and when the vehicle would be placed or produced. In the w/v o.p. did not annex any annexure along with the letter dt. 7.7.03. On the other hand it is appearing from the record that complainant repeatedly requested the o.ps. on 5.6.03, 6.7.03 and 19.9.03 to do the needful. On the other hand o.p. nos. 1 and 2 informed the complainant vide letter dt.19.6.03 that a report has been called for and assurance has been given to dissolve the dispute. Therefore, it is evident that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. and as such complainant was compelled to take recourse of this forum for relief. It is categorically submitted by ld. Counsel for the o.ps. that they are agreeable to solve the dispute as and when the vehicle would be produced. In view of the fact the consumer complaint succeeds and it is awarded in the following terms.

          O.ps are directed to reconcile the engine number if any keeping parity with the invoice number by which the vehicle was sold to the complainant. O.ps are also directed to rectify the technical defects of consumption of mobile as alleged by the complainant within two months from date. O.ps are also directed to pay compensation for deficiency in service Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and litigation cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within two months from date, failing which it will carry an interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.

          Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

           ________________                                                                                                                            _________________

          Member                                                                                           President