JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant purchased a brand new TATA Indigo Décor Diesel car from Roshan Motors petitioner in RP/3374/2012 which is an authorized dealer of TATA Motors petitioner in RP/3741/2012.  The car was purchased on 01.2.2008, for a consideration of Rs.5,63,850/-.  On the very next day, two tyres of the car got burst allegedly, due to a technical problem and were replaced by Roshan Motors.  The case of the complainant is that thereafter, the car developed several defects one after the other and had to be taken to the workshop on several occasions.

2.      It was alleged that when the car was taken to the workshop on 26.2.2008, in the very next month of the purchase, repair work including, suspension work was done and excels were replaced.  A large number of job cards have been filed by none other than TATA Motors in RP/3741/2012 and are available on the record.  A perusal of the job card dated 31.5.2008 would show that there was a problem with the rear knuckle bearings.  The job card dated 11.4.2008 would show that there was problem in some of the sump gasket-renew, renew cylinder cover gasket, crankshaft front seal renew and crank rear oil seal as well as with the oil pump.  The problem was also found with anabond oil filter indigo.

3.      A perusal of the job card dated 3.6.2008, would show that there was problem with rear knuckle bearings stub axle with spindle etc. A perusal of the job card dated 07.8.2008 shows that at that time, removal/ refitment of the bare engine was done and the following parts required replacement:

          “Parts (Part #), Part Description, quantity, billing type, status)

          ADHANABO100, anabond 666t (100 gms), 2, warranty, invoiced

          279701990102, bare engine indigoxl/indica1x 70 ps, 1, warranty, invoiced

          279014105301, gasket (for inlet manifold)(offer drg.), 1, warranty invoiced

          279020125304, gasket water inlet elbow, 1, warranty invoiced)

          279020125303, gasket water bypass, 1, warranty, invoiced

          279750105809, hose (egr cooler to return line), 1, warranty, invoiced

          279018130106, assy. Oil filter-tc(elofic), 1 warranty, invoiced

          279707140105, assy. Fuel pr. Line (pump to rail) bent, 1, warranty, invoiced

          279707140107, assy. Fuel pr. Line (rail to inj-1) bent, 1, warranty, invoiced

          279707140108, assy. Fuel pr. Line (rail to inj.2) bent, 1, warranty, invoiced.

          279707140109, assy. Fuel pr. Line (rail to inj.3) bent, 1, warranty, invoiced.

          279707140110, assy. Fuel pr. Line (rail to inj.4) bent, 1, warranty, invoiced.

          279701160101, assy. Injector (delphi), 1, warranty, invoiced

          279701169203, washer 2.5 thk (for injector), 1, warranty, invoiced

          OIL15W40CASTER, gtd 15w40 diesel engine oil Castrol, 5500, warranty invoiced.

4.      There are several other job cards showing the works which were to be carried out in the vehicle even during its warranty period.  To take another instance, the job card dated 29.01.2009 would show replacement of the assembly pump, assembly oil filter, bezel fog lamp.  The job card dated 28.4.2009 lists a number of complaints and shows replacement of the assembly fuel, filter and shift yoke sel and shift shaft. 

5.      It would thus be seen that the vehicle was not performing well and was giving trouble right from the time it was purchased.  It is true that the complaints made by the complainant and the defects pointed out by him were duly addressed, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the vehicle required repeated visits to the workshop and replacement of the several parts.  Not only the parts required replacement from time to time even the engine had to be dismantled and refitted.  The mental agony and harassment undergone by a person who purchases a brand new vehicle can be easily understood, if he has to pay so many visits to the workshop and is faced with so many problems in the vehicle purchased by him.  A person purchase a vehicle for the peace of his mind and it is expected that atleast in the warranty period which in this case was three years, the vehicle would not give any serious trouble and would perform well.  That however, has not happened in this case.

6.      It is true that the complainant did not produce any automobile engineer or any other expert to prove that the vehicle suffered a manufacturing defect but the job cards filed by the petitioners are by themselves sufficient to prove that the vehicle was not performing as per the expectations of a reasonable consumer and kept on developing one problem or the other requiring repeated visits to the workshop.  The complainant, in all fairness is entitled to adequate compensation for the mental agony and harassment so suffered by him, though considering that the vehicle was purchased about 12 years ago, it would be highly unfair to direct replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price which the complainant paid for the vehicle. 

7.      Considering all facts and circumstances, the orders passed by the fora are modified by directing that the complainant shall be entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him at the hands of the petitioners.  The liability to pay compensation would be joint as well as several and the compensation would be paid within three months from today.

          Both the revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly.