Tata Motors fined for defective car

New Delhi: The state Consumer Commision has asked Tata Motors Limited to pay Rs 7.65 lakh as compensation, including the refund, to a person who was sold a defective car, which could not clear pollution tests even after several rectification efforts.

"Consumer purchases a new vehicle or goods with a view that it will not bother him at least for few years and would give trouble-free service," said the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding the Tata Motors (TML) guilty of selling a defective Tata Safari, with a complaint of excessive emission of smoke, to customer Santosh Kataria.

Rejecting the TML's contention that the manufacturing defect should be proved by an 'expert evidence', Commission headed by Justice J D Kapoor said when circumstances speak for themselves, it was not necessary that an expert opinion should be obtained.

"By compelling the consumer to go to the garage every now and then to rectify the defect, which is continuously persisting as the amount of mental agony, tension and harassment one suffers at the expense of money and time is difficult to assess in terms of money." it said.

The order came on an appeal of TML, filed against the order of a District Consumer Forum asking it either to replace the car with a new one or refund the whole amount besides compensation to consumer as the vehicle was emitting smoke beyond permissible limit.

Earlier, Kataria, a resident of west Delhi, had alleged her Tata Safari, bought in October 2005, was emitting excessive smoke and the defect persisted even after airs.

Kataria, feeling aggrieved, then approached the District Forum, which allowed her complaint and asked her to deliver the car back to the TML and directed the manufacturer either to replace the car or refund the purchase amount besides the compensation.

Against this, the TML appealed to the Commission, which slightly modified the forum's order and asked it to pay Rs 7.43 lakh as refund besides compensation of Rs 25,000 for mental agony and harassment.

Justice Kapoor, deciding the appeal, said, "the interests of the consumers are pre-dominant and have to be safeguarded at any cost."