TATA ENGINEERING MARKETING & CUSTOMER SUPPORT PASSENGER CAR BUSINESS UNIT Vs. RURAL DEVELOPMENT TRUST REP. BY INNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Anthapur in C.C.No.62 of 2005.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased TATA Safari EX-1 for which the opposite party no.3 submitted quotation-cum-invoice for Rs.9,20,000/- to the opposite party no.4. The opposite party no.4 issued sale certificate informing the complainant that the delivery of the vehicle can be taken at their branch office at Bangalore. It was also informed that periodical check up and servicing of the vehicle can be taken up at Bangalore with the opposite party no.4. The vehicle was used for operational program of the complainant and not for any commercial purpose. The vehicle after logging for about 17,000 to 18,000 kms its engine begun to emanate noise whereby the performance of the engine was hampered. The complainant had sent the vehicle to the opposite party no.4 for check up, repair and service where it was found that the engine was defective and the same was replaced on 23.6.2004. Even after replacement of the engine, the vehicle was not upto the standard as promised by the opposite party no.4.

(3.) The vehicle begun to emanate noise, its speed was reduced whereby the supervision job of tsunami relief operations by the Asst. Program Director of the complainant at Nagapatnam in Tamilnadu was hampered and he was put to a log of trouble. The vehicle was consuming more than 2 ltrs of engine oil between every oil change to the next oil change. Though on 7.1.2005 the vehicle was sent to the workshop of the opposite party no.4 where service was done, the defect in the engine was not rectified. The automobile engineer of the opposite party no.4 could not identify the actual defect as a result of which the problem persisted whereby the complainant was disabled to use the vehicle. On 13.1.2005 the complainant addressed a letter to the second opposite party. There was no response even though the staff of the complainants association appraised the opposite party no.4 of the persisting problem. The complainant had spent an amount of Rs.10,35,636/- which includes insurance premium and life tax. There was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.