TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. DEEPAK GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 4.2.008 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. FA-427/2006- Tata Motors Limited Vs. Deepak Goyal & Ors. by which while allowing appeal partly, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld but compensation awarded was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 purchased Tata Indigo Diesel LX version- No. DL-4CU-2168 in the name of his sole proprietary Firm- M/s. Fab Yarn Inc. from opposite party No. 2/respondent No. 2- Dealer of opposite party No. 1/petitioner on 2.7.2003 for Rs. 5,02,517/-. After taking delivery of the vehicle, complainant faced problems and from 6.7.2003 to 13.4.2005 left his vehicle 15 times for repairs with M/s. Mirkana Engg. Pvt. Ltd.- workshop and also obtained the extended warranty on 24.9.2004 after paying Rs. 3,625/-. It was further submitted that he left his vehicle for repairs with M/s. Sanya Automobiles (P) Ltd. six times from 8.9.2004 to 3.8.2005. Complainant had to face problems such as noise from rear, clutch related problem, abnormal level of engine oil consumption, engine temperature rises to abnormal level, lack of engine power, air-conditioning, etc. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle had run more than 65,000 kms within a span of two years and there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further submitted that vehicle was repaired on 13.4.2005 on account of accident and no manufacturing defect or inherent defects were found in the vehicle. Few defects developed because of day to day running of vehicle, faulty driving and bad road conditions and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No. 3 did not appear and he was proceeded exparte. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and observed that complainant's vehicle was defective with manufacturing defects and directed opposite party to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle with fresh warranty and refund of Rs. 3,625/- paid towards purchase of extended warranty and further directed to refund Rs. 30,000/- towards repair of the car and allowed compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-. Appeal filed by opposite party No. 1 was partly allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to refund cost of vehicle instead of replacement of vehicle and set aside compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by District Forum against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for respondent No. 2 & 3 and they were proceeded ex-parte.