TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANR. Vs. RAVIKANT GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by order dated 6.9.2010, passed by Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (short, "State Commission") petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this revision petition. Brief facts are that respondent/complainant Shri Ravikant Garg purchased one Tata Indica Car on 31.12.1999 from the authorized dealer of petitioner No. 1, namely M/s. Hind Motors, Chandigarh for an amount of Rs. 2,90,064. The said car was got registered with the Transport Department vide Registration No. UP -07 -L -3863. There was 18 months warranty on this car. First free service of this car was got done from the service centre of the petitioner No. 1 situated at New Delhi. Thereafter, all next free services and repairs were got done from petitioner No. 2. But since very beginning, problems of excessive consumption of engine oil, rasping of tyres, problem of alignment and of gear were found in this vehicle. Petitioner No. 2 fulfilled the deficiency of engine oil from time and again and its price was also charged from the respondent. Tyres were also changed but the above defect could not be cured. On 17.12.2000, respondent sent a registered letter to petitioner No. 1 and informed him about the above defects of the vehicle but no action was taken. On 2.3.2001, again a letter was sent which was not replied by the petitioner No. 1. On 9.6.2001, respondent sent a registered notice to the petitioners through his Counsel. According to the respondent, after receiving the notice, petitioner No. 2 sent one of his representative Shri Rajiv Singhal to the respondent, who gave him assurance that petitioners are ready to replace the "Complete Sealed Engine" of the car and are also ready to extend the period of warranty and are also ready to remove other defects of the vehicle. In spite of the assurances given by the petitioner No. 2, no such action was ever taken and all/ oil defects of the vehicle remained as it is.

(2.) FINALLY , respondent filed a consumer complaint No. 210/2001 before District Forum, Dehradun. On filing the consumer complaint, petitioner No. 2 assured the respondent that they will replace the complete sealed engine with head and silencer head of his vehicle. On basis of this assurance, District Forum passed order on 27.3.2002 for withdrawal of the consumer complaint. However, according to the assurance given the petitioner No. 2, it did not replace the sealed engine of the vehicle.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioners filed (First Appeal No. 61/2008) whereas, respondent also filed (First Appeal No. 58/2008) before the State Commission.