SUNIL KUMAR SON OF DEEP RAM Vs. TATA MOTORS LIMITED AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-9-11
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 30,2010

Sunil Kumar Son Of Deep Ram Appellant
VERSUS
Tata Motors Limited And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved from the order of District Forum, Solan whereby his Complaint No. 15/2006 was dismissed on 31.07.2008. He had purchased a Tata truck, Model LPT -1109 on 24.03.2005 from respondent No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 6,77,000/ -. He obtained financial assistance from ICICI bank, The Mall Shimla in the sum of Rs. 5,85,000/ - for the purchase of this truck. Said vehicle was registered in the State of Himachal Pradesh under registration No. HP -09A -1342.
(2.) DURING course of hearing, it was not disputed that truck was under warranty for a period of 18 months or had covered a distance upto 1,50,000 kilometres, whichever was earlier. In the aforesaid background according to the appellant, when vehicle showed major problems during its journey to Delhi, it was taken to the authorized service point of manufacturer at M/s Metro Motors, Karnal on 26.10.2005. It was repaired by the said dealer, who charged Rs. 1368.10 paise. Still the problem continued, as such he brought it to the workshop of respondent No. 4.
(3.) IT was examined by the expert and employees of this respondent, and as per his version, the appellant was verbally informed that the engine of the truck was not working properly and it required overhauling. This defect developed according to the appellant within the warranty period. As such it was to be removed by the respondents without charging anything. At this point of time vehicle had covered only a distance of 34292 kilometres within a period of 6 months. Respondent No. 4 demanded Rs. 17,500/ - for overhauling per the appellant. Pleading manufacturing defect in the vehicle, and also denying liability to pay Rs. 17,500/ -, because the truck was within warranty period, complaint was filed. We may notice that respondents No. 1 to 3 is one set, who are manufacturers of the vehicle, whereas other set respondent No. 4 who is admitted authorized dealer for sale and service of vehicle in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.