SUNIL BHASIN Vs. TATA ENGG. & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD.
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2009-2-2
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 02,2009

Sunil Bhasin Appellant
VERSUS
Tata Engg. And Locomotive Company Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.D.KAPOOR,PRESIDENT - (1.)IN this case vide Order dated 22.8.2006 passed by this Commission the complaint of the complainant was allowed by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs payable by O.P.1 manufacturer on return of the vehicle and Rs. 25,000 compensation and Rs. 10,000 cost of litigation payable by O.P.2 -Dealer. However, the OP -manufacturer appealed against the said Order before the National Commission in First Appeal No. 500/2006 and the National Commission vide its Order dated 29th February, 2008 set aside the above Order of this Commission mainly on the ground that the OP -manufacturer was not given proper opportunity of putting up its version before this Commission, and the matter was remanded back to this Commission for deciding it afresh.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case as alleged by the complainant, which were already discussed in our previous Order dated 22.8.2006, are that the complainant purchased a vehicle Tata Indica Passenger Car for a sum to Rs. 3,26,040 manufactured by OP No. l/M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. through its dealer OP No. 2/M/s. Corcorde Motors Ltd. Soon after the purchase of the car the complainant discovered large number of manufacturing, mechanical and electrical defects in the car, which was taken on 30.40 occasions to the garage for removal of the defects and remained idle for 104 days in a short duration of 1 years. Having suffered mentally due to unfair trade practice, manufacturing defects of the car and incurred extra expenses in arranging alternative mode of conveyance the complainant has through this complaint sought compensation of Rs. 8,22,286.06 against return of the car with interest @ 18%.
(3.)OP No. l had launched amongst other vehicles Tata Indica Passenger Car and had made wide publicity through media to attract customers and influence the sales. OP No. l through OP No. 2 had made following representations in respect of the vehicle: (a) URO.ll.Pollution free (very Lucrative and essential offer in today's time). (b) More Car per car (as being an absolute trouble free vehicle). (c) Less consumption of fuel (very economical). (d) Good Air -Conditioning system providing uniform cooling during the peak summer season (A sound offer for Delhites). (e) High quality after Sales Service by the Joint Venture of Tata itself.
Believing the representations and inducements given by OP No. 1 the complainant purchased one TATA INDICA passenger car bearing registration No. DL.3CQ.3291 Engine No. 475IDI02DZZP22655, Chassis No. 600132 DZZP 22752 on May 5th, 2000 from OP No. l through OP No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,26,040 paid a sum of Rs. 5,500 towards one time road tax charges and another sum of Rs. 11,442 for insurance of the said car.



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