IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 14 of 2020 [Against the order dated 04.12.2019, passed in C.C.No.158 of 2016 by the DCDRC, Coimbatore].

Thursday, the 13^th day of March, 2025 Smt. S. Johns Mary, W/o. S. Suresh, No.3-C, PongaliKonar Street, Velandipalayam, Coimbatore – 641 025. .. Appellant/Complainant.

- Vs –

1. The Officer-In-Charge, Auto Zone Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., No.149, Mettupalayam Road, Near Saibaba Kovil, (Behind Lotus TVS Showroom), Coimbatore – 641 043.

2. The Officer-In-Charge, TATA Motors Marketing and Customer Support, Passenger Car Business Unit, One India Bulls Centre Tower, 2 A&B, 20th Floor, 841, Senapti Bapat Marg, Jupiter Mills Compound, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai – 400 013.

3. The Officer-In-Charge, TATA Motors, 14th Floor, Canberre Towers, UB City, #24, VittalMallya Road, Bengalore – 560 001. ... Respondents/Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. Menon.

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/OP-1 : M/s. V. Balaji.

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/

OP-2 & 3 : M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh. This appeal came up for final hearing on 27.02.2025, and on hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for both sides and on perusing the material records and the written arguments filed on both sides, this Commission made the following:-

O R D E R

THIRU. R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed as against the order dated 04.12.2019, passed in C.C.No.158 of 2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that she was approached and given several pamphlets by the authorized dealer of the 2^nd opposite party convincing her about the performance of the car Tata Indigo CS ELX and believing the promises and assurances made by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, she had purchased the car, Tata Indigo CS ELX on 06.09.2013 and registered as TN-38-BU-9821. She used to send the car for service only to the 1^st opposite party, who is the Authorized Tata Service Auto Zone Automobile (P) Ltd. The first service was completed on 1000 kms and the second service has been completed on 5000 kms and the further services were completed once in 5000 kms. When the vehicle crossed 18000 kms, she went to Ooty for a trip and she noticed the nozzle sound. She sent the car for service to the 1^st opposite party for rectifying the nozzle sound, but, they could not rectify the same both at 20000 kms and 25000 kms. Again, the car was serviced at 30000 kms and 35000 kms, but, the nozzle sound problem was not solved. When the car was sent for service on 28.04.2014 to the 1^st opposite party, they took the car for a trial in the Hills and had driven about 238 kms and the car was handed over to her only after 4 days. But, the nozzle sound problem was not rectified and the nozzles were not replaced as promised by the 1^st opposite party. Again she has sent the car for service on 09.05.2014. On delivery of the car, she took the car for a trip and again the same problem occurred. Every time when the car was given for repair, the 1^st opposite party used to keep the car for 17 days together without providing any alternate transportation for the complainant because of which, the complainant had suffered untold mental agony and hardships. Whenever the complainant made an attempt to contact the 1^st opposite party over phone, the same was not promptly responded. The steering box noise started from 25000 kms, but, had not yet been rectified so far. When the same was reported to the 1^st opposite party, there is no response till now. After the service on 09.06.2014 and spending Rs.8,530/-, the rear side noise started due to the improper service by the 1^st opposite party. Because of the rear side noise, her regular customers were making complaints and cancel the orders, due to which, her rental busin