SC tells Tatas to replace car

The Supreme Court has directed Tata Motors Ltd to replace a defective car and pay Rs 3,000 as compensation to the customer. A bench headed by Justice B. N. Agarwal dismissed Tata Motors' petition and asked the company to replace the defective car as it created noise beyond the permissible limit. It also asked the company to pay Rs 3,000 to one Lachia Setty, who bought the Tata Indigo Lx car in February 2004 for Rs 5.58 lakh. The national consumer disputes commission had already ruled in favour of the customer. While challenging the decision of the national consumer disputes redressal commission Tata Motors said the mere allegation of noise without any material evidence cannot qualify to be a defect under the Consumer Protection Act, when the level of noise is in conformity with the prescribed limits. The Commission had upheld the decision of the Karnataka State Consumer Commission, which had ruled in favour of the buyer. Setty had earlier won the case in a district consumer forum, which held that Tata Motors failed to produce documents to refute the charges that the noise level of the vehicle was less than the permissible limit of 82 db( A) from a competent authority. It further stated that unless there was a defect in a new car, no person would come forward to surrender the vehicle within a short period of one or two months. Setty had moved the forum for refund of the money after the car had started making an unbearable noise due to a defect in its clutch releaser within a fortnight of its purchase. It is common for car manufacturers to go in for appeal after consumer commissions rule against them. For instance, in a similar case in October 2004, the Delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission had upheld the district forum's order directing the Tatas to replace the defective engine of an Indica car and provide a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the customer for causing mental agony. The car dealer was also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for not providing proper service. The Commission had observed that “ the complainant had spent his hard earned money to purchase the vehicle and if it had to be taken to the workshop so often, it must have caused him immense mental agony besides harassment.”

Mail Today 14th April P 37 Delhi
With Thanks from Mail Today
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in