TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. NAVIN NISHCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 771 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal by observing as under:

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 in this petition was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (in short, 'the District Forum') with the allegation of manufacturing defects in the Tata Indica car purchased by him from M/s Sanya Motors (authorized dealer of Tata Motors, manufacturer of the car). The allegations related to starting problem, high consumption of fuel and engine oil as well as emission of excessive smoke. On 26.09.2004 (just after two months of purchase of the car) the complainant had to take the car to the dealer for repairs. Despite repairs, the same problem recurred and the complainant had to take the car back to the dealer on 23.10.2004. During 03.11.2004 -03.02.2005, the car was taken several times with the same problems which could not be rectified. The complainant then contacted the Manager (Customer Care) of Tata Motors and took the car to the latter's workshop on 03.03.2005, whereupon he was told that the engine of the car had been changed and there would be no problems. However, the problems still continued, which led him to issue a legal notice to the opposite parties and thereafter filing a consumer complaint, in which he prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective car with a new one or refund the cost thereof and also pay compensation of Rs.2 Lakh for harassment and inconvenience.

(3.) THE opposite parties contested the complaint before the District Forum and denied all the material allegations. In addition, OP 1 pleaded that if there was any manufacturing defect, the responsibility would attach not to it but the manufacturer, viz., OP 2. OP 2, in turn, contended that the defects pointed out by the complainant were attended to promptly from time to time during the period of warranty and only charges for consumable items were realized. OP 2 also accepted that the engine assembly had been changed but claimed that it had done so with the consent of the complainant.