TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. LAXMAN SINGH GABRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated4.3.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 104 of 2005 and directing the opposite party No. 2 to replace the complainant's vehicle's engine with a new engine within 45 days from the date of the order. The opposite party No. 2 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that in case, the opposite party No. 2 fails to replace the engine of the vehicle, the opposite This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 104 of 2005 and directing the opposite party No. 2 to replace the complainant's vehicle's engine with a new engine within 45 days from the date of the order. The opposite party No. 2 was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata Sumo vehicle from M/s. Mega Motors, Haldwani -opposite party No. 1, an authorised dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. against invoicedated 29.9.2004 for sum of Rs. 4,74,402. The description of the vehicle is as under:

(3.) AFTER plying the vehicle for some time, the complainant observed that the vehicle's carrying power has been reduced and vehicle's engine started getting stopped frequently. The complainant got the vehicle checked in the workshop of the opposite party No. 1 from 17.10.2004 to 20.12.2004. Ultimately, the vehicle lost its total carrying power on 3.3.2005. The complainant complained to the opposite party No. 1 regarding this problem. The opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to bring the vehicle to the service centre so that the engine could be replaced with a new one. On 6.4.2005, the complainant took back his vehicle with the belief that the engine was changed, but he found that the problem still persisted. The complainant again brought the vehicle on 5.5.2005 to the opposite party No. 1's service centre. The vehicle remained there upto 27.5.2005. This time, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the engine cannot be replaced as the warranty period of the vehicle had expired. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital, which was decided by the District Forum vide order dated 4.3.2008 in the above terms. Aggrievedby the said order, the opposite party No. 2 has filed this appeal.