IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FIRST APPEAL NO.- 719/2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/S SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.

ACTING THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE:

SH. ASHOK SETHI (Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS SHRI. HARPREET SINGH R/O S-392, FIRST FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH PART-I, NEW DELHI (Through: Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate)

M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.

BOMBAY HOUSE, 24 HOMI MODY STREET HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI … Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO.- 486/2014 IN THE MATTER OF M/S TATA MOTORS LTD.

BOMBAY HOUSE, 24 HOMI MODY STREET HUTATMA CHOWK, MUMBAI.

(Through: Sehgal & Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS SHRI HARPREET SINGH R/O S-392, FIRST FLOOR, GREATER KAILASH PART-I, NEW DELHI -110048 (Through: Mr. Anish Verma, Advocate)

SANYA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

D-13/1, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI -110024 … Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. RAJAN SHARMA, (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes Present: None for parties.

PER: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals i.e. FA-719/2014 and FA-

486/2014, filed against the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2014.

2. The facts of the case, in both appeals, as per the District Forum record are:

“The case of the complainant is that on 14.5.2004, he had purchased a new Car make TATA Indica V2 bearing registration no. DL-3CAC-1969 for a sum of Rs. 3,71,418.00 manufactured by OP-1 through its dealer OP2. The basic warrantee provide by the OPs was for 18 months and extended warranty for 3 years from the date of its purchase. The car was covered for any manufacturing or workmanship defects by the manufacturer. Complainant alleged that immediately from the day one it started giving problems to him. He reported the same to the OP-2 just after a week, the vehicle was also left at service station but the complained defects were not rectified. Complainant alleged that the vehicle was having defects like faulty shock absorber, low mileage poor pick up with AC Engine, switching off with AC, leaking power steering Assy, AC had poor cooling, noisy silencer, engine oil leakage, gear box Assy, which jerked like a crank when the accelerator was released and pressed again, besides some other problems as detailed and described in para no. 12 of its affidavit. For removal of such defects, complainant had taken the vehicle at the service station on 13.7.04, 4.8.04, 12.10.04, 16.3.05, 20.7.05, 15.9.05 and 4.10.08. Complainant further alleged that inspite of changing/modifying and replacing the parts, the defects still persisted. He has further alleged that though the vehicle was under warranty period yet the OP-2 demanded money and paid as per bills (Ex.C10 (Colly)). Not only that, on 15.9.05, when the vehicle was left with OP-2, its engineer while driving the same met with an accident with a truck resulting a lot of damage to his car. Though OP-2 initially informed him to lodge an FIR but later on he did not lodge any FIR. However, complainant took the photographs of the accidental vehicle (Ex.C-11 to Ex. C14). Complainant sent number of letters/e-mail to the OP-2 requesting it to repair the vehicle to his satisfaction but latter failed to rectify the defects which were of manufacturing, in nature. On 24.2.06, complainant got his vehicle inspected through Mechanical Automobile Engineer and after thoroughly inspection of his vehicle opined that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect. Even the pollution level of the vehicle was so excessive that he was unable to get the pollution certificate from the authority concerned. Supply of such vehicle, which was having manufacturing defects amounted to indulging into unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence, complainant brought this complaint before this Forum.”

3. The District Forum after taking into consideration the material available