TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. GIRJA SHANKER TAMTA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 19.04.2005, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 456/2004, Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Girija Shanker Tamta, vide which, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital on 23.08.2004 in Consumer Complaint No. 108/2001, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Girija Shanker Tamta purchased a Tata Indica Petrol Car on 31.05.2000 from the dealer OP-1, M/s Mega Motors, manufactured by the present petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,76,175 There was a warranty of 18 months for the said car. It has been stated in the consumer complaint that in November, 2000, there was problem in the gear box of the car, about which, information was sent to the OP-1 dealer. A mechanic was sent by the OP-1 dealer, who examined the vehicle and put it in running condition. However, just after four days, there was again a problem in the gear box of the car, which was again intimated to the dealer. Since none came to attend to the car, the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of the OP-1 at his own expense. The car was repaired and handed over to him by the OP on 201.2001. Again, for the third time, there was problem in the gear box and a lot of noise was coming from the same. The vehicle was not repaired, even after sending repeated information to the OPs. The complainant then sent a notice dated 23.03.2001 by registered post, saying that a new vehicle should be provided by the OPs in view of the repeated problems in the vehicle, but there was no response to the notice. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions that the car should be returned to the OPs and its price along with other expenses should be paid by the OPs to the complainant.

(3.) The OPs filed their common written reply to the complaint, in which they denied the allegations against them and stated that the complainant did not come in the category of 'consumer'. They also stated that the vehicle had been driven on rough and bumpy roads without proper maintenance. The service of the vehicle was also not got done from the authorised service centres. The OPs also stated that the defective gear box in the vehicle had been replaced by a new gear box, for which the complainant had presented a 'satisfactorily' note dated 20.09.2002. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, directed that the vehicle should be returned to the complainant, without charging any amount. Thereafter, the complainant could take the car to any authorised workshop for complete overhauling of the engine and removal of other defects. The OP should ensure that the car is completely repaired. In addition, it was also ordered that the OPs should jointly pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- for the transportation of the car. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP-2 challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was partly allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified to the extent that compensation of Rs. 20,000/- should not be paid by the OPs and interest on the said amount @ 10% should also not be paid. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the OP-2 manufacturer is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.