First Appeal No. 545 of 2012. Case: Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Johnson C.A.. Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 545 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V. Krishna Menon and S. Reghu Kumar, Advocates and For Respondents: R.S. Kalkura, Advocate |
| Judges | K. Chandradas Nadar, Presiding Member, A. Radha and Santhamma Thomas, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 13(1) |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 270 |
| Judgement Date | July 31, 2014 |
| Court | Kerala State State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
K. Chandradas Nadar, Presiding Member
-
Appellants were the opposite parties in CC. No. 125/2011 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. The respondent/complainant purchased a Tata Indica DLS Motor Car from the second opposite party for a sum of Rs. 3,63,337 on 16.1.2011. It is alleged in the complaint that the said vehicle was registered as KL-32/C 1783 and the complainant plied the vehicle as taxi to earn his livelihood. The purchase of the vehicle was financed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. Replacement warranty up to 20,500 kms. or for 24 months whichever is earlier was given for the vehicle. The complainant used the vehicle strictly in accordance with the instructions given by the manufacturer and the dealer. The said vehicle was brought for first service on 9.2.2011 to the second opposite party, when the meter reading showed that the vehicle had run 1137 kms. only. But the second opposite party did not return the vehicle after service on the agreed date. When contacted the second opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle was having some manufacturing defect with regard to the engine. The complainant demanded replacement of the vehicle as the vehicle was having critical engine trouble. The complainant sent notice through his Advocate to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties refused to replace the vehicle. Hence the complaint was filed. The first opposite party contended before the Consumer Forum that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a consumer. The car purchased by the complainant was of the highest quality and he had taken delivery of the same after being satisfied of the condition of the car. They had conducted pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle. The second opposite party had attended the alleged problem reported by the complainant. No problem exists with the car and replacement of the car is sought without any tenable reason. The complainant purchased the car to use the same as taxi by employing third party drivers. As per the warranty norms replacement right exists up to 50,000 kms. or 18 months which ever is earlier. During service of the vehicle the technical staff of the second opposite party noticed some sort of abnormal noise inside the engine. The problem was immediately referred to the first opposite party and as a result the original engine was replaced with a new engine as per warranty norms. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite...
To continue reading
Request your trial