ASHOK R TOLAT Vs. TATA MOTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant prays for a direction to the opponents to refund price of Tata Estate car bearing registration No. GJ-l-K-7132 being 4,23,000.10 with interest @ 18% being Rs. 13,55,747 from the date of the payment till the date of filing the complaint totalling Rs. 17,76,757.89 and further interest from the date of filing till realisation of the amount and also Rs.3,00,000 by way of compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and cost quantified at Rs. 25,000.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. S.P. Sen, learned Advocate for the complainant that the Tata Estate car was purchased on 5.9.1992; that there was warranty for a period of 18 months from the date of purchase; that even after the warranty period repairs have been carried out by the opponents as a gesture of goodwill; that there were number of defects in the car, that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time spent in the previous litigation is required to be excluded and therefore the complaint is within the period of limitation. It is further contended that there were number of defects in the car and the defects were not repairable being manufacturing defects, the complainant be granted the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. D.N. Shah, learned Advocate for the opponents that the complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as according to the complainant the car was defective right from day one and as a gesture of goodwill, the car was repaired even beyond the warranty period; that the complaint is barred by limitation and Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted in the present case for the purpose of exclusion of time taken in earlier litigation.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased Tata Estate car from the opponents on 5.9.1992 by paying Rs. 4,23,010.20. The delivery of car was taken on 5.9.1992 by the complainant. It is also suggested from the complaint that on 3.9.1992 the complainant was called for the inspection of the car and certain defects were noticed and letter dated 3.9.1992 was addressed by the complainant to the opponent and thereafter the delivery of the car was given on 5.9.1992 to the complainant. Thus, it would be seen that the defects were noticed, according to the complainant, in the car even prior to the taking of delivery of the car on 5.9.1992.