TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. MANOJ GADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. A-07/663, "Tata Motors Ltd. versus Manoj Gadi & Anr.", vide which, the order dated 25.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sheikh Sarai-II, in complaint no. DF-VII/117/07 was modified. The District Forum vide said order had allowed the complaint of complainant/respondent no. 1, directing the petitioner/OP No. 2 to replace the defective car with a new car of the same model with fresh warranty and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission vide impugned order directed that instead of replacing the defective vehicle, the petitioner M/s. Tata Motors shall refund the cost of the vehicle to the complainant on the return of vehicle, after completing the formalities of transfer of registration certificate in the name of the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 / complainant purchased a Tata Indigo LS- Diesel Car on 29.06.2006 from respondent no. 2 M/s. Sanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. According to the complainant, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 sold a second hand car to him that started giving problems immediately after purchase. He reported the matter to the OPs and he was assured that the defects in the vehicle would be removed. However, the problem could not be rectified, although the vehicle was subjected to repeated repairs. The power steering of the vehicle was changed, but still the problem continued. On 23.09.2006, the rack and pinion were changed; on 18.11.2006, steering column was changed; on 8.01.2007, power steering and pumps were changed, but the defects could not be rectified and noise continued from the steering as well as from the shockers. Within six months of purchase, the paint from the roof of the vehicle started peeling off, giving rise to the suspicion that an old car had been sold after repainting. The OPs denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of both the parties, directed that the vehicle should be replaced with a new car by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation should be paid to him. The present petitioner preferred appeal before the State Commission against this order. Vide impugned order, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed that the cost of the vehicle should be refunded to the complainant after completing the formalities of transfer of registration certification in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) During the course of hearing before us, notices were sent to complainant /respondent no. 1 and respondent