Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Compensation Petition No. OF 2004
Compensation Petition No. OF 2004
Vs.
I, Anuj Ahuja, S/o Sh. K.L. Ahuja, R/o 40-A, DDA Flats (LIG), Rajouri
follows:-
manufacture of, among various other products car for private use. I
company which was trouble less except normal bear and tear but that
car was of petrol version. I say that during the growing process of my
business I was often required to drive out of Delhi in the normal course
of my business and due to hike in the price of petrol the petrol car was
car. Around the same time I came to know of the diesel car called
very attractive feature of their car and being influenced and upon
learning about the picture given by the respondent No.1 I met various
dealers of the car including Respondent No.2 across the Delhi to know
more about it. I say that every where I had been given the similar
qualities of the car as also advertise by the respondents No.1, which for
qualities and being the innocent Consumer as not an expert about the
cars and especially diesel cars decided to purchase the deluxe version
of the said car hoping to save on fuel as also for comfort while traveling
the Respondent No.2 with the intention to purchase the said car. I was
as reliable and high performance car as all other car of the said make
were.
purpose from the ABN Amro Bank and obtained the principle loan
dated 18.3.2002 for the total sum of Rs.3,62,879/- inclusive of sales tax.
Rs.3,78,583/- was spent on the purchase of the said car out of which
manual containing information about the car and the warranty that was
provided by the respondent No.1 alognwith the car. It was stated in the
said manual that “Tata Indica is a safe car designed for quality
11. I say that the within 20 days of its delivery, the car started
malfunctioning. Initially, the car had a very poor pick up with the air
conditioner on, the air conditioner was not cooling properly and the car
was giving a strange mounting noise. Moreover, the car was giving
12. I say that the subsequently I took the car to the Respondent No.2
service station on 14th April, 2002. This was vide job card No.2177. But
the problem could not be rectified and instead he was informed that this
their fresh condition and that usually the problem went away by itself.
The applicant was advised to drive the car for a few days more and
then to bring it in for the first free service, when the problem will be
EXHIBIT-P/5.
13. I say that the problem persisted and I took the vehicle back to the
Respondent No.2 service station on 21st April, 2002. But even though
the car received its first service and all necessities were done, the
problems persisted. A copy of the job card No.2362 and the invoice is
exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/6.
rectification of the various problems, I left the car with the said service
station vide job card No.585 dated 1st May, 2002. On delivery, I was
informed that the all the problems had been attended to and I should
report back if the problems arose again. A copy of the job card the
15. I say that the car was back at the said service station on 7 th May,
2002, vide job card No.700, when the applicant was ifnroemd that the
car will be thoroughly checked. The car was delivered back to the me a
week thereafter, again with the assurance that the problem had been
anything, the problems had worsened, and now within five minutes of
switching on the air conditioners, the engine was stalling. Inf act, on
18th May, 2002, while the I was driving down Najafgarh Road, Delhi
without any preliminaries the car just stopped in the middle of the road.
The vehicle which was coming behind the car crashed into its bumper.
The vehicle was carrying iron rods, one of which went inside the
bumper. Though the rod was pulled out, it left a permanent gaping hole
shaken and cursing the day when I had bought the car.
17. The car was towed away, this time, to the workshop of another
Site Industriazl Estate, New Rohtak Roa,d New Delhi. The car was
taken in by them vide their job card No.4733. A copy of the job card is
exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/8.
18. I say that in the aforesaid workshop I have lodged the following
Complaint.
19. I say that once again there was nothing to show against the so
called repairs carried out in the car, even though it was left with said
dealer on 26th May, 2002 vide job card No.4972. A copy of the job card
20. I say that thereafter, the problem of the car suddenly stopping
the rod, while being drive, and once or twice, the I was saved from a
21. I say that the car has been taken to other authorized service
stations of the Respondent No.1, but let alone rectifying the problem,
the problem. Once or twice, after receiving the car, the service station
has, upon failure to diagnose the problem, have even simply cancelled
22. I say that since, the time the car has been purchased, the
aforestated have not been the only defects in the car. Other problems
have been cropping up, which may or may not be related to the
which, in a new car such as the present one and in car which is hardly
defect in the car which could not be rectified. Against all the
mental and financial torture and hardship. In fact, even the Respondent
communications and notices in this regard to them have not yielded any
result. Since, I was up till his neck with the Respondent No.1’s so
25. I say that on receipt of the said notice, there was a response
from the Respondent No.1, that the matter was being looked into. No
more was heard from them thereafter. A copy of the response dated
26. I say that there were several verbal exhortations to take action to
the office of the Respondent No.1 from which the aforesaid response
had been, but to no avail. Finally I had got issued another
requiring the Respondent No.1 to arrange to take back the vehicle and
P/15 (Colly).
problem was being looked into and the problems shall be rectified and
as soon as possible. I was informed that their engineers shall soon visit
me and take away the vehicle for inspection and rectification. Different
but inspite of passage of over four months, no one has actually visited
28. I say that when all efforts of mine yielded no result and went
application under Sections 36A & 2 (O), read with Section 12-B, of the
2003. I prayed vide the same, not only for holding appropriate enquiry
trade practices under the provisions of the MRTP Act and I has suffered
and damages towards the mental and physical torture and hardship
thereof. But since, the present Petition praying for compensation, and
29. I say that in UTP No.13 of 2003, in terms of the order dated 20 th
(Colly).
back by me on 12th January, 2004, when I was assured that all the
defects in the vehicle had been attended to. But I took the delivery of
31. I say that but contrary to the respondent’s assurances, the basic
32. I say that in February, 2003 while the I was at Dehradun with the
Fan of the vehicle which was not even an year old at the time. The
same had been replaced as the vehicle was under warranty. Copies of
occurred again in May, 2004 at Delhi. But this time, when the vehicle
over. A copy of the cancelled job card dated 5.5.2004 and the earlier
33. I say that in view of the said mental physical and monetary
refund of the total value of the car and damages towards the mental
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
DEPONENT
BEFORE THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE
Vs.
INDEX
S. Particulars Page
No. No.
FILED BY:
[UDAY KUMAR]
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT
27, Lawyers Chamber,
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.
NEW DELHI
November , 2006