Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   The Indian Car Scene (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/)

-   -   Protest against Tata Motors.EDIT Supreme Court Orders Tata to repair Sumo (pg.40) (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian-car-scene/8043-protest-against-tata-motors-edit-supreme-court-orders-tata-repair-sumo-pg-40-a-43.html)

Varun, were you present in court at time of the arguments?

You would not be saying this if you'd gone through the earlier posts on this thread!
In fact, I'm feeling embarrassed I congratulated him for the 'victory'!!

No, I was not present at the court as I was expecting the arguments to come up sometime later. However, my cousin and his dad attended the session.

So long.....

Can this 'judgement' not be appealed? I cant believe the apex court would think all this case deserves is another repair, when so many repairs have failed to fix the problem. There should be something amiss somewhere...

Really sorry to see you go through so much of trouble,With the fighting spirit.These are just the reasons why i just winced after taking a TD in a safari.even though its a great car, the tought of repeated trips to the service station every second day, its simply not what you want to be doing

Thanks for the clarification. For a moment, I thought that your counsel was taking you for a ride, and he was not present.

Please post the judgment of the hon'ble National Commission (I think they too have a site, you can post a link here).

I have more to say on this; but let me see the judgment of the NCDRC first.


Justice Black of the US supreme court once said "we are not final because we are infalliable; but we are infalliable because we are final:.

In other words, the Supreme Court's decision has to be accepted as the correct decision, because you cannot question it.

There is a good reason the judiciary are given almost absolute immunity -- they need to base their decisions on good reason and reasoning. So far, going by what has been posted here about what the NCDRC has ruled, this decision does not stand to reason. Let us see the NCDRC's decision before discussing this matter further.

There is a good reason why Skoda ignores customer complaints. There is a good reason why police men steal from vehicles involved in accidents (see Zaks' thread started today).

I think the title as edited is rather misleading. The Supreme Court's decision is based on a concession by Tata Motors themselves.

I am feeling somewhat the same, though overall, atleast SC has directed to repair the car (very inadequate though as many have remarked).
However, if Tata is not doing anything as varun informed earlier, isn't that contempt of court ??

[quote]I am not too sure about their web site, but I shall put up the Orders of the District, State and National Consumer redressal Forums.

After reading these it would be obvious to everyone ,how these big business houses are safe guarded our Indian Legal System.

You sound more like Inspector Clousseau. Glad to know someone is so interested in this case. I am touched.

So long.....

Orders of the National Consumer Dispute redressal Forum are posted here.

So long....

Orders of the State Consumer dispute redressal Forum dated 21.11.2007

So long.....

If one reads the State Forum's order carefully, they will find how unjust the Forum is to individuals when compared to huge business establishments.

While I have been asked to surrender the vehicle for repairs within 15 days from the date of Order, no time frame has been given to Tata Motors to repair and return the car to us.

On receipt of the Order, a petition to this effect was filed by me requesting the Forum to give specific time period to Tata Motors to repair and return the car to me along with the 6 months extended warranty. This was dismissed by the forum, even though they were fully aware that the repairs have been delayed for want of spares parts in the past. This was also one of my complaints for which I was seeking relief.


So long.....

The first ten pages of the Order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. More pages to follow in the next post

So long.....

So, the before the State Commission Tata Motors, submitted that Tata Motors will rectify the defects if you submit the vehicle with a list of defects, they (Tata Motors) will fix the problems. Your counsel agreed to this formula before the State Commission.

After this, you hand over the vehicle to Tata Motors, who ask you to take delivery of the vehicle, but you refuse. (or take delivery and return the vehicle - please clarify what exactly it is, just for sake of completeness).

That is the story which emerges from the 3 judgments you posted, may be you have more details in previous pages.

There was a delay of almost six months in approaching the National Commission. That was a very serious mistake. The National Commission took the view that since the State Commission's order is based on consent of parties. Probably, you had a contention that though the vehicle was handed over, the problems were not fixed. That was subject matter of a different dispute; but no such contention is seen raised in the order of the National Commission.

Before the Supreme Court, Tata Motors took the view that "we will fix the problems".

Unfortunately, they could have, but did not say that "we fixed the problems after the State Commissions' order itself".

Too bad the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not have the time or inclination to notice the subtle distinction.
Too bad If Tata Motors did not put it that way, the Supreme Court ought to have noticed.

The Last two pages of the Order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. Continued from previous post.

So long.....

Hi Varun. You put up a good fight nevertheless. You are an inspiration.

My take, on hindsight, after 2 yrs of fighting with Skoda -

What hurts these guys more than any financial or legal penalty is the publicity about the matter. Public awareness about the product should be created. This is what pains them the most.

For these crooked guys, the matter is over the moment it enters Court. All they have to say thereafter to any query is that 'the matter is sub-judice'.

Whereas, in matters that are not in litigation they have to reply to queries from the Press and the public.

I hope we see some drastic reforms in these matters in the years to come.

:) Cheers.