Flt Lt M P Singha vs TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO LTD

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 10.2.2005 in Complaint Case No. 540 of 2003, Flt. Lt. M.P. Singh v. The Senior Manager (Customer Support) Passenger Car Division, TATA Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Pune and Others.

THE complaint had been filed against the O.Ps. for selling a defective car seeking an amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment due to frequent occurring of problems with the car from 10.4.2002 to 13.12.2002. The learned District Forum had observed that the complainant had to take his car to the workshop on as many as eleven occasions from the period 10.4.2002 to 13.12.2002, even though, the complainant could not substantiate his allegations about the vehicle suffering from manufacuring defect as no expert evidence had been brought on record. It, however, held that the vehicle was suffering from starting problem and A.C. tripping due to which the complainant had to take the vehicle to authorized service station of the O.Ps. repeatedly for removing these defects and as such, the complainant could not make proper use of the vehicle as expected from the new vehicle. It held that by visiting the workshop repeatedly, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and harassment for which, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,000 was awarded to the complainant along with costs of Rs. 550.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal, which was taken on board and the record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Notices of appeal were also served on the respondents. Col. A.S. Vaid, Authorised Representative appeared on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Avtar Manmohanjit Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate put in appearance for respondent No. 4. Mr. Devinder Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the respondent No. 5.

COL . A.S. Vaid, Authorised Representative of the appellant/complainant submitted that his sole prayer is for enhancement of compensation because the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is grossly inadequate. He submitted that the car had to be taken to various workshops of the O.Ps., as many as, eleven times for repairs in a short span of nine months and every time, the car was repaired and the fault either reoccurred or a new problem arose. He further emphasized that the plea of the O.Ps. that the problem with the car was due to fixing of Central Locking fitment by the complainant, is not tenable because Central Locking was fitted in the vehicle at the time of purchase itself and in the first two months, there were no problems. He further added that even after the repairs of the car on 13.2.2002, even though the Central Locking remained fitted to the car and there is no problem now. He also referred to Annexure C -2 of the appeal, which certifies that there is no short -circuiting or over drawal of current in the car due to fitment of central locking and security system. Mr. Avtar Manmohanjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the problems were rectified whenever the complainant brought the car to the workshop. He also pointed out that the car gave an average of 25 kms./ltr. when a test drive was conducted along with the complainant over a stretch of 80 kms. He reiterated the plea of the O.Ps. that it was the central locking and security system, which caused all the problems and since this central locking and security system was not installed by the O.Ps., Para 5 of the warranty has been violated. He also referred to the fact that when a test check was done on the car for 30 hours after removal of central locking and security system, there was no seepage of electric current. He further submitted that as per the order of the learned District Forum, the O.P. No. 1 has already sent the compensation amount by way of a demand draft to the complainant. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

WE have gone through the record on file and also the impugned order. We have also heard both the parties carefully.

IT is uncontroverted that the new car had to be taken to the workshop eleven times in a short span of approximately nine months. This surely would have caused suitable harassment and mental torture to the owner particularly when he happens to be a young newly married officer. From the record as well as problemless functioning of the car after 13.12.2002, it is clear that it was not the central locking and security system, which caused problems with the car. It is also on record that the O.Ps. had to change/adjust various parts related to the ignition system, battery and A.C. on a number of occasions. Even though, there is no speicifc yardstick for award of compensation in such cases. Keeping in view the price paid for a new car of a reputed company and the period of mental harassment and agony of the complainant, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is on the lower side. In our considered view, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000 should meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that the compensation to be paid is enhanced to Rs. 20,000. Subject to this modification to the impugned order, rest of the order is upheld. It is directed that this amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000 be paid to the complainant within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment. The complaint is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly allowed.