Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/159/2017

Prithviraj Bafna - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Chaudhary

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 159/2017

 

Prithviraj Bafna r/o 36, Shopping Centre, Janta Colony, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

T & T Motors Pvt.Ltd., through authorized signatory H 953-954 RIICO Industrial Area, Phase III, Sitapura, Near Fire Station, Ronk Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 25.7.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr. Ashok Mehta counsel for the complainant

None present for the non-applicants

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint is filed on 22.12.2017 with the contention that the complainant purchased a new Mercedes car on 11.4.2017. After 15 days of the purchase he noticed the problem of noisy brakes and gates. Repeated mails were sent to the non-applicants but no sincere efforts have been made to cure the complaint. Six times the vehicle was sent to the service centre but the problem still remain unsolved. Hence, the complainant has asked for refund of the amount alongwith compensation.

 

Per contra the contention of the non-applicant no.1 is that whenever any problem was pointed out it was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant and he is not deficient. The non-applicant no.2 has stated that warranty covers only for the replacement of parts. After sale the service responsibility is of the authorized dealer only. Hence, no deficiency could be attributed to them.

 

The parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case. None appeared on behalf of the non-applicants.

 

3

 

It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a new mercedes car on 11.4.2017. Invoice is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after 15 days the complainant has suffered complaints of noise in gates and brakes. E-mail of 18.5.2017 Anx. 3 reveals that brake and gates are noisy. Anx. 11 is the job cards of the vehicle which shows that on 18.5.2017 car was sent to the service station. Thereafter again on 6.6.2017 service history shows that there was a localize noises on body, brake pads were changed. Same problem were persist on 17.10.2017, 31,10.2017 and 17.11.2017. Service history dated 17.11.2017 shows that the specific note has been fixed that test drive taken and still brake noise persist. Hence, facts of the present case clearly shows that inspite of the various communications the problem has not been solved by the non-applicant.

 

The counsel for the complainant has also pointed out para no. D (2) (viii) of written statement of non-applicant no.2 wherein it has been revealed that used vehicle was sold whereas as per the invoice a new car has been sold to the complainant which clearly established the case of unfair trade practice. In view of the above, the non-applicants are deficient and when a used car is sold to the complainant and that too

4

 

with defects and it is more than clear that defects could not be cured inspite of various services, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle or if replacement is not possible the cost of the vehicle alongwith interest.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is allowed. The complainant is entitled for replacement of the vehicle with new car within two months and if replacement is not possible, the complainant is entitled for cost of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 51,83,025/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and Rs.50,000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm