TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. ANURAG SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 02.03.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no.366 of 2002. By this order, the State Commission modified the order dated 07.02.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short, 'the District Forum') in complaint case no. 260 of 2001 and directed the petitioner (appellant before the State Commission) to refund the cost of the vehicle with depreciation of 10% to respondent 1 on return of the vehicle and pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and injury suffered by respondent 1/complainant and cost of litigation.

(2.) Respondent 1 was the complainant before the District Forum. He purchased a TATA Indica DLX car from respondent/opposite party 2 (OP 2), the authorised dealer of the car manufacturer (OP 1 before the District Forum), i.e., the petitioner herein. The complainant alleged that even at the time of delivery, the car did not have the audio warning signal and reversing beeper though these facilities were mentioned in the booking brochure but for which extra money was charged. Sides of the car had black linings, which were not rectified despite assurance to do so at the time of the first free service. Just after driving 350 km, the oil of the power steering leaked out and the power windows stopped working. The car had to be towed to the workshop, where it remained for two days. Non-functioning of the power windows happened several times thereafter. At the time of the first free service, the complainant was assured that all the defects in the car, viz., coolant leakage, wheel alignment, problem with the power windows, defective central lock, improper rear view mirror, starting trouble, defective gear box, low mileage, excessive heating of the car and noisy fan belt would be rectified but nothing was done. As a result of these defects, the car had to be taken to the workshop a number of times within the period of 18 months (warranty period). The complainant wrote to the General Manager of OP 1 about these defects, which continued to recur showing that these were serious manufacturing defects and hence beyond repairs. In view of these reasons, the complainant sought directions of the District Forum to the OPs to replace his car with a new one or refund the cost of the car and to also pay him compensation for harassment and inconvenience.

(3.) The complaint was contested by both the OPs. It mainly claimed that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and OP 2 promptly attended to some routine problems, which were noticed from time to time in the course of regular use of the car.