TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. AJAY RISHI
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-9-1
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 29,2006

TATA MOTORS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Ajay Rishi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT (ORAL) - (1.) ON account of having sold a defective vehicle which was taken to the garage of the appellant as many as 21 times as the job card shows as many as 24 defects of different kinds, the appellant, vide impugned order dated 21.2.2004 passed by the District Forum has been directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and further to pay Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation.
(2.) THROUGH this appeal, the impugned order has been mainly assailed on the ground that the defects as pointed out by the respondent from time -to -time were rectified by the appellant during the warranty period and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is on higher side. Respondent purchased brand new vehicle manufactured by the appellant. During the warranty period, he took the vehicle 21 times to the garage for repair. There were about 24 defects of different kinds.
(3.) IN the modern day busy life it is not possible for a person to time and again take the vehicle for repairinjg for removing one or the other defect every second day and that too in a brand new vehicle. The time and expense and mental agony it involves is unimaginable. In such a situation manufacturer has to compensate the consumer adequately. It was with a view to inculcate the sense of discipline in the approach of the manufacturers of vehicle and other goods that very sterm standards of quality, purity were prescribed. The word 'defect' means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or (under any contract express or implied, or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods. (Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986). The aforesaid definition itself puts a heavy onus upon the manufacturer or the trader to compensate the cosumer if there is any kind of fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, potency, purity or standard of goods as claimed by the trader or the manufacturer in relation to any goods manufactured by him.;


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