Tata Motors to pay Rs 2.25l for taking 2 years to mend truck

The Tata Motors Ltd has been directed by the apex consumer forum to pay Rs 225,000 compensation to a customer for taking nearly two years to repair and return a faulty truck, sold to him.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission gave the order on a plea by Tata Motors challenging the verdict of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission which had held the truck to be defective and had asked it to refund the cost of the vehicle or replace it.

"In our view, since respondent/complain (customer) has not paid repair charges of the vehicle but was deprived of its use from October 26, 2005 to August 24, 2007, we consider it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs 200,000 to be paid by the petitioner (Tata Motors) and its dealer jointly and severally to respondent/complainant (Sunil Kumar).

"The amount of compensation as also the cost of Rs 25,000 be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of the order," said the NCDRC bench presided by Justice R C Jain.

The NCDRC, however, set aside the order of the state consumer commission that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle, saying that it (state commission) did

not obtain an expert opinion.

"In our view, the state commission appears to have abruptly rushed to the conclusion that this is a case of manufacturing defect," it said.

Sunil Kumar, who hails from Shimla, had not paid the repair charges of the Tata truck he had bought for Rs 6,77,000 on the ground that the vehicle was under warranty period.

In his complaint to the district consumer forum, he had said within six months of the purchase, the truck developed a major problem while on its way to Delhi, adding the authorised service centre could not rectify the same and he had to take the vehicle to the company's workshop.

The district forum had dismissed his plea and he had moved the state commission, against whose order the Tata Motors had approached NCDRC.

The firm had contended before the NCDRC that the state commission's order was based on a single instance of breakdown and no expert opinion was sought while holding the truck to be defective.

The company said the vehicle had broken down because of overheating caused by the negligence of the truck owner and not due to any manufacturing defect.

It had also said that it had not returned the vehicle and had kept it with it for long as the customer had failed to pay the repair charges.