TATA MOTORS LTD Vs. AJAY SINGH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall decide two revision petitions, which are detailed above. Revision petition No. 1742 of 2015 is filed by M/s Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd./the dealer/opposite party No. 1, and the another revision petition No. 1743 of 2015 is filed by Tata Motors Ltd., the manufacturer/opposite party 2.

(2.) Shri Ajay Singh, the complainant, purchased Tata Indigo, CSLX car on 18.12.2009 from opposite party No. 1 for Rs.4,63,000/-. When the complainant was taking the car to his village, he experienced that it climbed hilly road with great difficulty with first gear, emitted dense smoke, engine created peculiar noise and its pick up was slow. There was problem in its turbo as it was giving excessive acceleration of its own. He informed Shri R. K. Sharma and Shri V. K. Sood of OP No. 1, telephonically, on the next following day. Shri V. K. Sood took the car to the workshop of OP 1 at Hoshiarpur with the help of a mechanic. Even at that time, the car started with great difficulty after repeated efforts and its engine made screeching noise. He was promised to remove the defects or to replace the car with a new one. He again took the car to his village but he found that the same problems were existing in the vehicle, which were due to major inherent manufacturing defect in it. Opposite Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and was liable to indemnify the complainant. The complainant took the car to Shimla alongwith his family members. The complainant reached Shimla with great difficulty as the problems were still persisting.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 1 tried to remove the defects but all in vein. The job cards dated 19.1.2010, 15.2.2010, 19.2.2010 and 22.2.2010 reveal that the car was brought to workshop by towing with another vehicle. OP 1 explained that its engine was replaced with a new one on 22.02.2010 but according to the complainant, this was falsely stated. The job card dated 22.2.2010 reflected that there were 17 major defects in the car. On 09.3.2010, Mr. V. K. Sood of OP 1 gave in writing that the vehicle was still under repair but refused to give the job card. The car remained in the workshop for a considerable time.