TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. D K KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TATA Motors Ltd arraigned as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in complaint case No. 1150/05(1616/04), aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by District Forum -X, New Delhi have come in appeal before this Commission praying that the vehicle supplied by them to Shri D.K. Kapoor, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) was not defective as held by the District Forum nor they had promised or mis -represented that the vehicle would deliver mileage of 12 km. per litre of petrol with Air -conditioner on.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, precisely stated, are that the respondent, allured by the claim made by the OP as per their advertisement and publicity that their Indigo GLS car (Petrol) would give mileage of 12 km. per litre of petrol with Air -conditioner on, purchased a car bearing No. DL 3CU -6171 on 14.2.2003 by making payment of Rs. 4,28,782 to OP -1 M/s. Mirkana Engineering Pvt. Ltd., manufactured by the appellant. As per the allegations of the respondent the car started giving trouble continuously from the date of purchase and,therefore, had to be taken to the workshop of OP -1 several times. The respondent mentioned the dates on which the car had to be taken to the service station of the OP -1 and according to the complainant it all happened because of the defective and imperfect vehicle for which the claim of average mileage also proved fallacious.

(3.) THE OPs including the appellant appeared in response to the notice of the complaint and filed their written version refuting all the allegations including that the respondent had been assured of mileage of 12 km. per litre of petrol with Air -conditioner on, as alleged. They further submitted that the respondent had taken a test drive of the vehicle before purchase and after being fully satisfied with performance and functions of the car, he purchased it. They enumerated various facts for low mileage and attributed the deficiency in the performance of the vehicle pointed out in the complaint by the respondent, to poor driving of the vehicle which could have led to over -heating, etc. They did not deny that the vehicle had brought to the workshop of OP -1 but submitted that every time the respondent was provided satisfactory service and the parts were also replaced whenever required during the warranty period, free of charge.