|
I think the verdict is that Tatas need to replace the faulty car with a new one. The alternate option is just so that in case Tatas refuse to do so then they need to refund the amount and 20000 as compensation over that as penalty.
Now, the article may not say everything that the court considered while issuing the ruling. Looks like the car did not have any debilitating problems. As in engine seizure or gearbox failure that just render a vehicle kaput. Yes, the article says 'the gears that did not move" which can be for so many simple reasons which probably takes an hour to rectify. So presumably the owner kept driving the vehicle all this while albeit after repairs by Tata each time. And that is probably why the court thought that a replacement is a sufficient remedy. Basically it was meant to convey that just repairing the car everytime is not sufficient. If a new car does not behave as expected then irrespective of all the repairs that the manufacturer/A.S.S. carried out it is still a faulty car and does not meet the minimum level of expectations of a consumer who bought a new car to enjoy a trouble free first few years. So if this guy gets a new car after driving it around for 4 years I think its an ok verdict in his favor if not exemplary.
In harishv's case the ruling may turn out to be harsher for the manufacturer as the car has been standing in the garage for more than 1 year while the owner is paying through his nose. On top of that the ruling will also have to take into account all the foul play that the manufacturer's representatives (the dealer) indulged into, and thus caused mental agony to the customer. So there the compensation has the possibility to be much stiffer than in this case.
Last edited by Zappo : 19th May 2009 at 00:47.
| 
19th May 2009, 00:15
