Team-BHP
(
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethanhunt123
(Post 2523083)
Mid Version does NOT come with trip meter/utility pockets/anti glare IRVM. Guess there is no dearth people willing to garner cheap publicity by suing companies. They should learn reading first.
|
Quality tests of user manuals should also be done.
They should mention that these feature are only for abc variants.
I think the the service booklet is common for all three variants.Most manufactures offer same service manual for all there variants.Its written in the booklet "IF EQUIPPED" on most of the features in the car.I think she got confused herself.
What do u think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serious_maniac
(Post 2522956)
I did not quite get the news and the actual case. Why was the lady expecting features. Did the company change specifications or was it a serious miss in production & QC? And why are parallels being drawn with Skoda? I believe Skoda is being projected as the nadir benchmark which perhaps is unwarranted and definitely unrelated to this case.
~maniac
|
The Skoda Fabia manual lists a hell lot of features that do not exist in any version - ESP for instance! Perhaps we should sue.
Why doesnt a rule come up making ABS and Airbags mantodatory or at least as an option.Often people have to reach out for the top end model to get these safety features.These manufacturers are milking people who want safety over comfort.Shouldnt a case be filed against them?Or has it already been done yet no effect ?
As far as i know Honda is the only company that provides ABS/airbags on all its vehicles even below ten lakhs.
All the European cars sold in India come with global user manuals. I guess everyone can start suing for missing features now?:uncontrol
Why is the court ruling ridiculous as mentioned in the title? If the features are actually missing (like seat belt) when they should be there, then it's a proper ruling.
1. The thread title is misleading.
2. The article content of TOI is (as expected) sketchy and not detailed.
I refuse to form an opinion on this.
Mods, could you please match the title of the thread more in line with the TOI article?
Are rear seat belts compulsory? If yes, I guess only that part would be enforceable. Rest all is ridiculous, at least as understood from the news article.
Almost all the owner's manuals that ship with cars today are comprehensive and same for all variants of the car. For e.g. my Ikon's owner's manual also contains details of the 1.8 diesel Endura model. Should I sue Ford for not giving me an additional diesel Endura along with the 1.6 Rocam petrol?
At the worst it could be a mistake in documentation, where the owner's manual doesn't mention that certain features are part of a specific version only. If the court hsa indeed ruled for Tatas to provide those features, I am sure the decision will be overruled. If the court has fined Tatas for the documentation error, then I think they should wake up and provide proper documentation.
Either ways it would be incorrect to draw conclusions without knowing in detail what exactly transpired.
Read and re-read the article, and I am still confused. How is this Tata's fault? Ok, they gave a booklet of a higher variant. But that does'nt mean you get the car thats in the booklet. All booklets/brouchers/advertising's have a discalimer - "Accessories shown may not be a part of the standard variant".
Even Skoda gives a booklet with the Laura, thats meant for the Octavia. Why, world over its called the Octavia. Now, I wouldnt be going to court because some features mentioned in the booklet do not match my car.
Something is missing here. Why did Tata end up paying?
The article doesn't mention Tatas have paid. Most likely they will appeal.
While the threat is on Tata Nano, I've actually had an experience booking a new Swift Zxi a couple of years back and seeing the next day after collecting it that a few things were missing - namely - the removable box ash tray (the dealer claimed it was not there, but I pointed out on a display Swift that it was indeed there), the cigarette lighter (I never noticed it wasnt there due to my excitement of driving out the new car), and the screwable knob to lower the rear seat. Though the dealer tried to put the blame on me for his screwup, after making some comments on the dealer's PDI process, he gave relented me the missing things probably taken from another new car in stock.
LOL
All safari 4x2 owners. you can go to court an demand compensation for not having 4WD which is mentioned in owners manual rl:
This ruling is truly in "duh" land.
But then, law goes by the book. If you forgot to mention in the owners manual that certain features are optional, you can be sued.
Nano owners, can you please open your owners manual and see if power windows are mentioned as optional, or just mentioned.
okay, apparently by law, since sept 2000 rear belts are mandatory.
not usage, but installation (by manuf).
The lady says they are absent.
IMO, if this is true, then tata has got off lightly.
She wouldnt have had to work for the rest of her life, if this was the sue.S.A.
Good time to be a lawyer. We are following the American way of life - litigation for the smallest things.
True, all mandatory items should be provided - no excuses but sometimes interpretation of the law may question common sense. :eek:
I wish the judiciary shows some relative speed in harishv's case against Skoda/ Nummer Eins to which this Nano case is no patch at all. Both in terms of nature of complaint and its seriousness/ severity/ impact.
IMHO, this should be an open/ shut case for Tata when they appeal. Otherwise this will set an awful precedent where people will start using it as a reference for demanding further fitments/ equipment
| All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 14:39. | |
