TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. KESHAV MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dated 24.04.2012 in Appeal No. 174 of 2009, 182 of 2009 & 2001 of 2009 preferred by the opposite party M/s Goyal Automobiles, M/s Dinesh Automobiles and complainant.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent no.1 Keshav Mani filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Shimla alleging that she purchased a truck manufactured by the petitioner Tata Motors Limited from M/s Dinesh Automobiles, sub dealer of M/s Goyal Automobiles, authorised dealer for Tata Commercial Vehicles. The truck was financed by opposite party no.4 M/s Tata Motors Finance. The said truck was purchased in August 2005 and it started giving trouble within 2-3 months. This fact was brought to the notice of opposite party no.2 M/s Dinesh Automobiles and on the advise of sub dealer, the truck was taken to Vasco Motors Chandigarh, the authorised service station of Tata Motors. It is the case of the complainant that Vasco Motors Chandigarh on inspection of the vehicle informed the complainant that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The complainant, therefore, approached opposite party no.2 & 3 to replace the truck but in vain. The complainant thus filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as well as its authorised dealer and sub dealer, namely, opposite party no. 2 & 3 and claimed replacement of the vehicle besides payment of damages to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs for harassment and Rs.10,000/- against litigation expenses.

(3.) The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing separate replies. The allegation of manufacturing defect in the truck were denied. The petitioner Tata Motors took the specific plea that consumer complaint is not maintainable because the truck was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose.