TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. M. MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent, Mr. M. Moosa, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, had purchased one Tata Estate Car manufactured by the first appellant, M/ . Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., from the second appellant, M/s. V.S.T. Motors Ltd., who are dealers of the said car, on 8 July, 1992, for a sum of Rs. 4,17,281. According to the complainant, from the very date of purchase itself, the vehicle started giving problems resulting in severe suffering, mental agony and also loss of comfort and reputation. The defects noticed by the complainant were the sticking up of the rear left window, non-working of power windows, very high engine noise, abnormal vibration, leakage of water through a gap in the rear door resulting in the upholstery getting wet in the rear, water leakage from A/C hose and dripping on the feet of the driver, head lights burning even after being switched off, rattling noise from exhaust pipes, faulty electrical system resulting in fuses to blow frequently, non-working of the central locking system, non-locking of left rear hand door, difficulty in opening it, wires hanging out disturbing passengers' leg movement, careless finish, noise from the cones, creaking noise from the front and rear suspension, door rattling, non-securing of the front seat, faulty stereo system, radio and speaker non-working, rear wiper falling. The car was sent to the dealer on 3.8.1992 for rectification of the defects. It was returned to the owner on 8.8.1992 and, on that very date, while returning from the airport, the vehicle broke down and it was removed to the roadside.

(2.) All the defects were pointed out and a notice was issued by the complainant through his lawyer on 1 Sept., 1992, to both the opposite parties, but there was no reply. According to the complainant, the car supplied to him was of lower standard and far from the tall claims made by the manufacturer, the fond hopes and expectations created by the opposite parties at the time of sale. On 19 Oct., 1992, the complainant wrote to the dealer that without prejudice to the legal notice, the vehicle was being sent for service/rectification/repairs. The complainant was not satisfied with the performance of the vehicle and he sent another legal notice on 15 Dec., 1992. On that date, the car completely broke down as the engine stopped and the vehicle had to be pushed to a safe place by persons. On 9 Jan., 1993, the Manager of the dealer took away the car for repairs. The complainant intimated once again the defects in the car by letter dated 9 Jan., 1992, duly acknowledged by the dealer. The defects were not satisfactorily rectified. Another notice was issued on 11 March, 1993. On the above facts, the complainant filed complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the State Commission, Tamil Nadu, at Madras, for refund of the price of the car together with interest and it has also claimed Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and another sum of Rs. 1 lakh for loss of comfort and mental shock. It also claimed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony for subsequent period and costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000.

(3.) The first opposite party, i.e., the manufacturer contended that whenever the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the second opposite party with any complaint, it was fully attended to and the same was put into perfect working condition. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and many of the complaints voiced by the complainant would have been avoided had the complainant adhered to the schedule for getting carried out the free maintenance service as recommended by the opposite party. In other respects, it adopted the pleas of the second opposite party, i.e., the dealer.