TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. SURESH KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had purchased a truck manufactured by the appellant on 28.2.1997. This carried a warranty clause, which reads as follows:

(3.) It was stated that the vehicle started developing problem from the very beginning and as a result of which the engine of the said vehicle was replaced on 25.8.1998 and subsequently despite this replacement, the vehicle was still developing problems relating to engine and other parts. Since it was not getting proper service, a complaint was filed before the State Commission with a prayer to replace the vehicle as also demanding a compensation of Rs. 18,52,000 under various heads. The State Commission after hearing the parties directed the appellant to replace the engine in question and make the vehicle road worthy. The complainant was also awarded Rs. 60,000 being the wages of driver as also the helper. It was also directed that vehicle should give satisfactory performance upto 5,00,000 km. from the date it is made road worthy. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.