INDIAN PUBLIC SCHEEL SOCIETY Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 05.11.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal No. 1221/2013, "Tata Motors vs Indian Public School Society," vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum, Sikar in consumer complaint No. 34/2008, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner Indian Public School Society / Committee purchased a bus manufactured by respondent No. 1/OP -3 Tata Motors Limited for a sum of 9,48,754/ - for their school, after obtaining a loan of 8,05,000/ - from the ICICI Bank. The bus was purchased from the dealer of Tata Motors, M/s Crossland Works Private Limited at Sikar. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, it had already run about 1432 Kms and moreover, there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle. The complainant contacted the OPs who assured them that the defects in the vehicle shall be removed. However, despite several requests, the defects were not removed. It has been stated that all four tyres of the vehicle became out of order, even on running only 15263 kms. The complainant also made request for replacement of the vehicle, but the OPs refused to change the same. A consumer complaint was then filed, seeking directions to the OPs to replace the defective vehicle, or to return the amount of 9,48,754/ - with interest, alongwith compensation of 3 lakh.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the dealer Crossland Works by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they denied the allegations raised in the complaint and further stated that if there was any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, the same could be taken care of by the manufacturer only. The OPs also stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part, because the defects pointed out by the complainant from time to time had been removed completely.