E-Paper
Driven up the wall by defective car, Chandigarh man awarded ₹30,000 relief
The complainant alleged that not only was the engine defective, but even the inbuilt locking system and door installation were officially found faulty within three months of the car’s purchase
A city resident, who took Tata Motors and its dealer to consumer court for selling him a defective car, has been awarded a compensation of ₹30,000.
Durgesh Kumar Jha had filed a case against Tata Motors Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, and RSA Dynamic Motors LLP, Chandigarh.
Jha submitted that he bought a Tata Nexon XM (S) petrol car on March 25, 2022, for ₹8,96,900, along with accessories for ₹55,400, from RSA Dynamic Motors LLP, Chandigarh.
For the purchase, he took a car loan of ₹9,04,898 from HDFC and had been paying monthly EMI of ₹13,769.
Jha alleged that after buying the car, while driving back home, he observed mechanical/technical error in the vehicle’s ignition box, where the EMS alert light continued to remain on.
He raised a complaint with the car dealership while also sharing that the accessory scuff plates were not installed. Later, he found that the music system was also not working properly.
The very next month, in April 2022, the car’s engine was replaced, but within three months, issues with the car door cropped up, leading to more replacements.
He alleged that not only was the engine defective, but even the inbuilt locking system and door installation were officially found faulty within three months of the car’s purchase.
In its response, Tata Motors claimed that the vehicle did not have any issue, which was evident from the fact that it had already covered more than 12,000 km. Minor issues, such as music system not working properly, central lock issue, etc., were bound to arise due to on road conditions and usage of the vehicle.
RSA Dynamic Motors LLP said after replacement of the engine, the vehicle did not suffer any problem related to the engine. Also, the complainant got the vehicle serviced from another agency at least thrice.
However, the commission observed: “Since, after purchase of the new vehicle, it gave many problems and the complainant had to visit the workshop of OP No.1, many a times, he needs to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment for non-use of vehicle many a times during warranty period.”
Thus, it directed the opposition parties to pay a lump sum compensation of ₹30,000 to the complainant for causing him mental agony and harassment.
