M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 08.08.2011 passed in C.C.302/2010 by District Commission, Bhopal)

 

TATA MOTORS LIMITED,

REGISTERED OFFICE-BOMBAY HOUSE,

24, HOMY MODI STREET,

MUMBAI (M.S.)-400 001.                                                                             … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

1. DECEASED AIZAZ SAULAT

    THROUGH LR DR.SARFARAZ SAULAT,

    S/O LATE AIZAZ SAULAT,

    R/O HOUSE NO.75, AIZAZ CLINIC,

    MACHLI BAZAR, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

2. PRAGATI AGRAWAL,

    TATA NANO DEALER, TATA MOTORS

     MANAGING DIRECTOR,

     MECHMAN MOTORS PVT. LTD.

     NH-12, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

3. MR. COLLINS T. MATHEW,

    S/O SHRI P.T.MATHEW,

    DIRECTOR, MECHMAN MOTORS PVT.LTD.

    NH-12, HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                                  ...   RESPONDENTS.  

                    

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Fateh Daga, learned counsel for the respondent no.1

           Ms. Sanju Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 10.08.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

                   The opposite party no.2-Tata Motors Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘manufacturer’) has filed this appeal against the order dated

-2-

08.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal  (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.302/2010 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1(hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had booked a Nano Car with the opposite party no.1/respondent no. 2 and 3-Mechman Motors (hereinafter referred to as dealer) which was later delivered to him on 22.12.2009. The complainant had paid total Rs.1,67,727/- to the dealer regarding cost, registration and insurance fee. At the time of delivery a booklet was given in which it is mentioned that till 18 months or 24000 kms whichever is earlier free service will be given. It is alleged that free service was not provided and the amount for servicing was charged. It is further alleged that immediately after its purchase, the vehicle started giving trouble as its brake system is nonfunctional and to stop the vehicle, hand brake and gear had to be applied. On repeated complaints neither the dealer nor the manufacturer did not take any action.  The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of dealer and manufacturer, approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1-dealer resisted the complaint on the ground that coupons were provided with booklet for free servicing of the

-3-

vehicle. The amount charged during servicing towards oil and the servicing was done free of cost. The complainant has filed a complaint on concocted and false grounds. The complainant had drove the vehicles of power engine vehicles but the Nano comes under the category of Manual engine. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the dealer. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                The opposite party no.2-Tata Motors Ltd, manufacturer of the subject vehicle remained absent before the District Commission and therefore, proceeded ex-parte by the District Commission vide order dated 21.10.2010. 

5.                The District Commission allowing the complaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document