BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pardeep S. Saini, House No.340, Phase XI, Mohali.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1)      Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, 5^th Floor One Forbes Dr V B Gandhi Marg, Mumbai.

2)      Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Hirajee, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OP-1

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP-2

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, on 21.1.2009 the complainant, purchased a Tata Indica Vista Quadrajet limited edition car from the OP-2 which suffered from inherent manufacturing defects since the very beginning viz. noise from the front right axel, missing and knocking in the engine, portion of tourbo not working etc. for which job cards dated 2.2.2009, 7.4.2009, 19.6.2009, 4.8.2009, 13.8.2009, 2.9.2009, 18.9.2009, 8.10.2009 and 14.10.2009 were prepared and the OPs changed/replaced ECU – Rubber cap (child part), fuel filter on 12461 kms. as against the recommended 20000 kms., injectors, tube kit high pressure, gasket, injector seal R & R Injector (each), Disassemble and Assemble front strut (each) etc. but still the problem could not be sorted out. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 did not dispute the facts with regard to purchase of the car and dates on which the car was brought to the workshop.  It has been denied that the vehicle was suffering from loud/irritating noise or that there was any noise from the front axel.  It has been submitted that whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop of OP-2 it was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It has been vehemently denied that the vehicle was suffering from any manufacturing defect. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In the separate written reply OP-2 took almost similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their written reply and also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments.

6.           The vehicle was purchased on 21.01.2009 and when the complainant went to the OP on 4.08.2009 he reported a missing problem.  Thereafter on 14.08.2009 also the problem subsisted and was so reported to the OP.  The complainant again went to the OP on 2.09.2009, when the noise was reported in the engine.  It was again reported to the OP on 18.09.2009.  The complainant again went to the OP on 14.10.2009, when the noise in the engine and the missing problem were reported but the same could not be rectified by the OP inspite of their best efforts.  The contention of the complainant is that both these problems are continuing even now.  The OPs claim to have removed the defects but the complainant does not agree with the same.  The latest job card issued by Kalsi Car Clinic, Annexure C/1A also shows under carriage noise in the vehicle.  The car had been taken to the OP several times but they had not been able to remove the defects.  The car was still under warranty and therefore it was the duty of the OPs to set it right by removing the defects.  We are therefore of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to remove the defect of missing and knocking noise of the engine and also pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  If the problem is not removed then the OPs would pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for selling the defective vehicle with which the complainant would be free to get the vehicle repaired from some other workshop.  This amount will also be just and reasonable to compensate the complainant for the harassment, loss of time and pursuing the present complaint.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                         Sd/-                            Sd/-     30.03.2010