Chandigarh Consumer Court Orders Car Dealer to Pay Rs 2 Lakh for Service Deficiency
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh has ordered a local car dealer to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation to a consumer, Tilak Raj, due to service deficiencies and harassment. Raj purchased a Tata Altroz from RSA Motors in June 2020 but soon encountered multiple defects, including paint fading, AC malfunction, cabin vibrations, and unusual noises. Despite repeated visits to service centers, the issues were only temporarily addressed, causing significant inconvenience. The complainant sought a vehicle replacement or complete rectification along with compensation, alleging unfair trade practices. Tata Motors and the dealers, Berkeley Tata Motors and RSA Motors, denied the allegations, arguing that the defects resulted from external factors and that the consumer failed to provide expert evidence of manufacturing faults. However, the Commission ruled that while a major manufacturing defect was not proven, the failure to provide permanent solutions constituted a clear deficiency in service. Consequently, the complaint was partly allowed, and the dealers were directed to compensate the consumer for the harassment and inconvenience suffered during the prolonged dispute over the new vehicle's condition.
Wire timeline
Chandigarh Consumer Court Orders Car Dealer to Pay Rs 2 Lakh for Service Deficiency
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh has ordered a local car dealer to pay Rs 2 lakh in compensation to a consumer, Tilak Raj, due to service deficiencies and harassment. Raj purchased a Tata Altroz from RSA Motors in June 2020 but soon encountered multiple defects, including paint fading, AC malfunction, cabin vibrations, and unusual noises. Despite repeated visits to service centers, the issues were only temporarily addressed, causing significant inconvenience. The complainant sought a vehicle replacement or complete rectification along with compensation, alleging unfair trade practices. Tata Motors and the dealers, Berkeley Tata Motors and RSA Motors, denied the allegations, arguing that the defects resulted from external factors and that the consumer failed to provide expert evidence of manufacturing faults. However, the Commission ruled that while a major manufacturing defect was not proven, the failure to provide permanent solutions constituted a clear deficiency in service. Consequently, the complaint was partly allowed, and the dealers were directed to compensate the consumer for the harassment and inconvenience suffered during the prolonged dispute over the new vehicle's condition.
The Indian Express