LAWS(NCD)-2015-5-61

R C GROVER Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD

Decided On May 27, 2015
R C Grover Appellant
V/S
TATA MOTORS LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.07.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. FA -08/152 R.C. Grover Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent purchased Tata Indica Car DL -3CS -3071 on 24.3.2001 from OP No. 4/Respondent No. 2 manufactured by OP No. 1/Respondent No.1. During warranty period, car was not functioning satisfactory and was taken to OP No. 4/Workshop every month, in initial months and later on twice a month. It was further submitted that car had inherent problems mentioned in the complaint which could not be rectified. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that car sold to the complainant is of the highest quality and fully complies with the warranties, assurances and specifications provided by the manufacturer. Car was subjected to detailed examination after manufacture and pre -delivery to the complainant. It was further submitted that complainant took delivery of car after being satisfied about the quality and performance. It was further submitted that complainant did not point out inherent defects in the vehicle, but normal wear and tear of the vehicle caused some problems which were rectified and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to replace old car with new car under fresh warranty and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation and Rs.10,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OPs was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and set aside direction of replacement by new car, but affirmed other directions against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.