Chandigarh Man Receives ₹30,000 Compensation for Faulty Car

Aggrieved By A Faulty Car, A Man From Chandigarh Receives ₹30,000 In Compensation.

June 26, 2024

The complainant claimed that not only was the engine defective, but within three months of purchasing the car, issues were officially identified with the inbuilt locking system and door installation.

A resident of the city took Tata Motors and its dealer to the consumer court for selling a defective car and has been granted a compensation of ₹30,000.

Durgesh Kumar Jha filed a case against Tata Motors Pvt Ltd in Mumbai and RSA Dynamic Motors LLP in Chandigarh.

Jha stated that he purchased a Tata Nexon XM (S) petrol car on March 25, 2022, for ₹8,96,900, along with accessories costing ₹55,400, from RSA Dynamic Motors LLP in Chandigarh.

To finance the purchase, he obtained a car loan of ₹9,04,898 from HDFC and has been making monthly EMI payments of ₹13,769.

Shortly after purchasing the car, Jha noticed a mechanical/technical issue with the vehicle’s ignition box, causing the EMS alert light to remain on while driving home. He promptly reported these issues to the car dealership, noting that the accessory scuff plates were also missing. Later, he discovered that the music system was malfunctioning as well.

The following month, in April 2022, the car’s engine was replaced. However, within three months, issues with the car’s doors emerged, necessitating further replacements.

Jha alleged that not only was the engine defective, but also that the inbuilt locking system and door installation were officially identified as faulty within three months of purchasing the car.

In response, Tata Motors argued that the vehicle had no issues, citing its mileage of over 12,000 km as evidence. They attributed minor issues such as the malfunctioning music system and central locking problems to typical wear and tear from road conditions and vehicle usage.

RSA Dynamic Motors LLP stated that after replacing the engine, the vehicle did not encounter any engine-related problems. They also noted that Jha had the vehicle serviced by another agency at least three times.

However, the commission noted: ‘Since the new vehicle caused numerous issues after purchase, requiring the complainant to visit OP No.1’s workshop multiple times, he deserves compensation for the mental distress and inconvenience of not being able to use the vehicle during the warranty period.’

As a result, it ordered the opposing parties to pay a lump sum compensation of ₹30,000 to the complainant for the mental distress and inconvenience caused.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in