TEJAS GOPALJI SOMANI Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the parties; considered.

(2.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned order dtd. 29/6/2020 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, Mumbai, in First Appeal bearing No. 161 of 2015. Vide such order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the order dtd. 3/12/2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nanded, in Complaint No. 227 of 2012.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant, relying upon the Opposite Party No.1, had booked a Safari EX vehicle for Rs.7,80,206.00 on 12/10/2006 by paying Rs.50,000.00. The Complainant purchased the said vehicle on 19/10/2006 by obtaining finance from Vaidyanath Urban Bank and also insured it with ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. for 3 years. It was the case of the Complainant that the said vehicle suffered from various defects from the first day. It was contended that the vehicle made noise from rear side; the rear doors and the front door were not opening from the inside; the AC had stopped working and the vehicle was not starting immediately. Therefore, the vehicle was inspected by Opposite Party No.1's expert persons and engineers; however, they were unable to remove the defects. Thus, the vehicle was taken to the showroom at Nanded and a letter dtd. 13/11/2006 was issued in this regard. The Complainant on 15/11/2006 had informed the Opposite Party No.1 that the vehicle had manufacturing defects and the said vehicle was a demo vehicle and on 2/12/2006, he requested them to either give a new vehicle or the consideration price of the vehicle along with miscellaneous expenses incurred. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that the vehicle was repaired and more than once requested him to take it. However, the Complainant replied to Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dtd. 26/12/2006 and contended that the vehicle was to be repaired within 15 days from purchasing. Therefore, now, the Complainant had lost trust on TATA Safari Ex as the Complainant had spent Rs.9,00,000.00 on the vehicle. However, he was unable to use the vehicle and had to suffer mental harassment. The Opposite Party No.1 again on 20/3/2007 and 8/5/2007 requested the Complainant to take the vehicle However, the Complainant wanted a new vehicle and the Opposite Party No.1 neither gave a new vehicle nor paid the price and expenses. Therefore, the Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint no. 166/2016 before Ld. District Forum, Beed which was allowed vide order dtd. 25/6/2007. Consequently, the Opposite Party No.1 had filed an Appeal no. 572/2007 before the Ld. State Commission, Aurangabad which was allowed vide order dtd. 20/4/2012. Therefore, a Revision Petition no. 1985/2012 was filed before this Commission by the Complainant wherein this Commission vide order dtd. 26/9/2012 had directed the Complainant to make TATA Motors as Opposite Party No.2 and to file a fresh Complaint before the proper forum within 60 days. Therefore, the Complaint bearing no. 227/2012 was filed before the Ld. District Forum, Nanded seeking payment of Rs.8,68,510.00 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization, Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 and Rs.20,000.00 as Litigation Expenses.