Uday Kumar

 

BEFORE THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI COMPENS COMP ENSATIO ATION N PET PETITION ITION NO.

OF 200 2004 4

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Anuj Ahuja

…Applicant Vs.

M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents

EVIDENCE BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPLICANT MR. ANUJ AHUJA

I, Anuj Ahuja, S/o Sh. K.L. Ahuja, R/o 40-A, DDA Flats (LIG), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, do hereby solemnly declare and state as follows:-

1.

Th That at I a am m rres esid iden entt o off D Del elhi hi an and d w wor orki king ng fo forr g gai ain n at at D Del elhi hi.. I s say ay

that I purchased a car manufactured by Respondent No.1 through the Respondent No.2 details whereof are given below:Tata Indica (DLS) V2 Diesel Chasis No.600142 CXZP 16990 Engine No. 471DI02CXZP1S248 Registration No. DL 8 S Z 0031. 2.

I sa say y th that at tthe he R Res espo pond nden entt No No.1 .1 iis s a li lim mited ited C Com ompa pany ny ver very y we well ll

know kn own n in Indi India a an and d ab abro road ad,, an and d is in invo volv lved ed in th the e bu busi sine ness ss of  manufac man ufacture ture of, amo among ng vario various us other pro product ducts s car for priv private ate use. I further say that the Respondent No.2 is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a authorized dealer  of the cars being manufactured by the Respondent No.1.

 

3.

I was previously owing a car manufactured by a different

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 proving to be costly therefore therefore I planed to bye a good and reliable diesel car. Arou Around nd the s same ame time I cam came e to kn know ow o off the d diese iesell car c call alled ed Indica V2 being manufactured by the Respondent No.1 through the vide publicity campaign carried out for it by the Respondent No. 1 copies of  various similar advertisements, which the Respondent No.1 continues to get published in daily news papers are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P-1.

4.

I sa say y th that at in ad adve vert rtis isem emen entt th the eR Res espo pond nden entt No.1 No.1 ha has s bee been n giv given en

very ver y at attra tracti ctive ve fea featu ture re of the their ir car an and d be being ing influe influence nced d an and d upon 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 mo re abo about ut it. I say that eve every ry wher where e I ha had d been given given the sim simila ilar  r  qualities qualitie s of the car as also advertise by the responden respondents ts No.1, which for  instance were as follows:-

a)

Intern terna ati tio ona nall qu qua ality d diies esel el e en ngin ine e.

b)

Insta stantly co cool oliing Air c co onditi tio oner

c)

Super silent cabin

d)

Mi Mile leag age e (o (on nh hig ighw hway ay)) of 21 21.1 .16 6K Kms ms Pe Perr llit iter er of di dies esel el w whi hich ch with diesel costing Rs.18.16 per liter in Delhi would come to around 84 paise per Kms. etc. etc.

5.

I say that I being influenced by the assurance about these

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 in connection with my business.

6.

I sa say y th that at a acc ccor ordi ding ngly ly h hav avin ing g so sold ld m my y ol old d re reli liab able le car car a app ppro roac ache hed d

the Respondent Respondent No.2 with the iintention ntention to p purchase urchase the said ca car. r. I was assured by the Respondent No.2 that the car to be sold to me would be as reliable and high performance car as all other car of the said make were.

7.

Su Subs bseq eque uent ntly ly I hav have e arr arran ange ged d for fi fina nanc nce e fa faci cili liti ties es fo forr the s sai aid d

purpo pu rpose se fro from m the the AB ABN N Am Amro ro Ba Bank nk and ob obtai tained ned the pr princ incip iple le lo loan an amount of Rs.2,89,500/- on 60 installment of Rs.6632/- over the period in 5 yea years rs wh which ich com comes es to 3,9 3,97,9 7,920 20//- wi with th in inter terest est.. A sta statem tement ent of  account pertaining to said finance facilities is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/2.

8.

IS SAY AY that that ac acco cord rdin ingl gly y th the e sa said id ca carr ma manu nufa fact ctur ured ed b by y re resp spon onde dent nt

No.1 sold to me by Respondent No.2 vide their invoice No.000603 dated 18.3.2002 for the total sum of Rs.3,62,879/- inclusive of sales tax. The copies of invoice is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/3.

9.

Besides the said amount I also paid a sum of Rs.11,889/-

toward tow ards s com compu pulso lsory ry com compre prehen hensiv sive e in insur suran ance ce of the veh vehicl icle e an and d Rs.3,81 Rs.3 ,815/5/- towar towards ds the road tax. Therefor Therefore e an agg aggrega regate te amou amount nt of  Rs.3,78,583/- was spent on the purchase of the said car out of which 2,89,500/- was financed by the financier and rest of Rs.89,083/- was paid out of my my own pocket. So total am amount ount spent by m me e in purcha purchasing sing the said car amounting of Rs.4,87,003/-.

 

10.. 10

I say th that at al alon ong g wit with h the ca carr I wa was s giv given en a ma manu nual al cont contai aini ning ng

manual containing information about the car and the warranty that was provided by the respondent respondent No No.1 .1 alognwi alognwith th the car. It was stated in th the e said sa id ma manu nual al that that “Tat “Tata a Indi Indica ca is a sa safe fe ca carr de desi sign gned ed fo forr qu qual alit ity y performance. A true copy of manual is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/4.

11.

I sa say y that the with ithin 20 days of its its deliv iver ery, y, th the e ca carr sta starte ted d

malfunc mal function tioning. ing. Init Initial ially, ly, the car had a very poo poorr pick up with the air  conditioner on, the air conditioner was not cooling properly and the car  was giving giving a strang strange e mount mounting ing noi noise. se. Mor Moreove eover, r, the car was giving giving very low mileage of around 10-11 Kms/Lt.

12.. 12

I sa say y tha thatt the sub subseq seque uentl ntly y I to took ok tthe he ca carr to tthe he R Resp espon onden dentt No.2 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 kind of seeming trouble sometimes happened in new cars on account of  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 rectif rec tifie ied d if it pers persist isted ed..

A true cop copy y of the Job Car Card d is exh exhib ibite ited d as

EXHIBIT-P/5.

13.. 13

I sa say y th that at tthe he p prob roblem lem pe persi rsiste sted d an and d I ttoo ook k the the ve vehi hicle cle ba back ck to the

April, 20 2002. 02. But even th though ough Respondent No.2 service station on 21 st  April, the car received its first service and all necessities were done, the problems persisted. persisted. A copy of the jo job b card No.236 No.2362 2 and the invoice invoice is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/6.

14.. 14

I say ttha hatt the Res Respo pond nden entt No. No.2’ 2’s s rep repres resen entat tative ive advi advised sed m mea ean n to

take tak e the car to the Re Respo sponde ndent nt No. No.1’s 1’s au autho thoriz rized ed ser servic vices es sta statio tion n

 

Triumph Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at 38 Behrampur Road, Gurgaon, which is about about 50 Kms distan distantt from my place. In the hope of com complete plete rectification of the various problems, I left the car with the said service station vide job card No.585 dated 1st  May, May, 200 2002. 2. On de delive livery, ry, I w was as 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 invoice is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/7.

15.. 15

I sa say y th that at tthe he c car ar w was as b bac ack k at tthe he s sai aid d se serv rvic ice e sta stati tion on o on n 7 th May,

2002, vide job card N No.700, o.700, when the applica applicant nt was ifnroem ifnroemd d that the car will be thoroughly thoroughly checked checked.. The car was deli delivered vered back to the me a week thereafter, again with the assurance that the problem had been attended to. A copy of the job card is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/7.

16.

I say that in reality there was no change in the problem. If 

anything, the the proble problems ms had worsen worsened, ed, and now within fi five ve minute minutes s of  switchin swit ching g on the air cond conditio itioners ners,, the engine was stal stalling ling.. 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 which was coming behind the ca carr crashed into its bump bumper. er. The Th e veh vehicl icle e was carry carryin ing g iro iron n rods,

on one e of wh which ich we went nt insi inside de the

bumper. Though the rod was pulled out, it left a permanent gaping hole in the bumper. bumper. More More import important antly, ly, this incid incident ent left the me compl completel etely y shaken and cursing the day when I had bought the car.

17.. 17

Th The e car w was as to towe wed d awa away, y, th this is ti time me,, to th the e wor works ksho hop p of anot anothe her  r 

one of the repsodnent No.1’s dealers called Autolinks at 1/1, Railway Site Indust Industriaz riazll Estate Estate,, New Rohta Rohtak k Roa,d New Del Delhi. hi. 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.. 18

I say th that at in tthe he af afor ores esai aid d wor works ksho hop p I ha have ve lodg lodged ed the the fol follo lowi wing ng

Complaint. 1.

Low p piick u up pw wiith a aiir c co onditions,

2.

Missing and Ignition out.

3.

Air c co onditioner le less e efffective,

4.

Low average ((1 11KMs/Lt.)

19.. 19

I say ttha hatt on once ce ag agai ain n th ther ere e wa was s no noth thin ing g to sh show ow a aga gain inst st the 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 No.4972 is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/9.

20.. 20

I say th that at th ther erea eaft fter er,, the pr prob oble lem m of the ca carr sud sudde denl nly y stopp stoppin ing g

af afte terr co coup uple le of mi minu nute tes s of the the ai airr co cond ndit itio ione nerr be bein ing g star starte ted, d, ha has s persisted. On many occasi occasions, ons, the car sudd suddenly enly stoppe stopped d in middle o of  f  the rod, while being drive, and once or twice, the I was saved from a severe mishap due to the sheer presence of my mind.

21.. 21

I sa say y that that th the e ca carr ha has s be been en ta take ken n to ot othe herr au auth thor oriz ized ed serv servic ice e

stations of the Respondent No.1, but let alone rectifying the problem, the speciali specialists sts of the Re Respondent spondent No No1. 1. have fai failed led to e even ven diagno diagnose se the problem. problem. Once or twice, after receiving receiving the car, the se service rvice station has, upon failure to diagnose the problem, have even simply cancelled the job card. A copy of the job card is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/10.

22.

I say that since, the time the car has been purchased, the

aforestated aforestate d have not bee been n the only de defects fects in the car car.. Other probl problems ems

 

have ha ve be been en crop croppi ping ng up up,, wh whic ich h ma may y or ma may y no nott be re rela late ted d to th the e aforesta afor estated ted basi basic c defect defects. s.

Vari Various ous spar spare e parts had to be chang changed, ed,

which, in a new car such as the present one and in car which is hardly driven primarily because it is not in a condition to be driven, are highly unlikely unli kely tto o be ch change anged. d. A cop copy y of var various ious jjob ob an and d rece receipts ipts showi showing ng change of such spares parts are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/11 (Colly).

23.. 23

I sa say y that that th ther ere e se seem ems s to be so some me pe perm rman anen entt ma manu nufa fact ctur urin ing g

defe de fect ct in the the ca carr wh whic ich h co coul uld d no nott be re rect ctif ifie ied. d.

Ag Agai ains nstt al alll th the e

Respondent No.1’s publicity about the car, I experienced nothing but mental and financial torture and hardship. In fact, even the Respondent No.1’s people are unable to do anything in the matter because various communications and notices in this regard to them have not yielded any result. resu lt.

Sin Since, ce, I w was as up till his n neck eck wi with th th the e Res Respond pondent ent N No.1’ o.1’s s so

call ca lled ed hi high gh pe perf rfor ormi ming ng ca car, r, ther theref efor ore e I pe pers rson onal ally ly ha hand nded ed over over a communic comm unicatio ation n date dated d 21st  Ma May, y, 20 2002 02,, on 22nd  May ay,, 20 2002 02,, to th the e Respondent Responde nt No.1, to whi which ch there has bee been n no response response.. A copy of the same is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/12.

24.. 24

I sa say y tha thatt sub subse sequ quen entl tly, y, I ha had d go gott to is issu sued ed a n not otic ice e da date ted d 15th

June, 2002, to both the Respondents, on 18 th June, 2002. A copy of the same is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/13.

25.. 25

I sa say y th that at o on n re rece ceip iptt of tthe he s sai aid d no noti tice ce,, th ther ere e wa was s a re resp spon onse se

from the Respondent Respondent No.1 No.1,, that the ma matter tter was bein being g looked into into.. No more was heard from them thereafter. A copy of the response dated 27th June, 2002 is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/14.

26.. 26

I say ttha hatt the there re we were re se seve veral ral v verb erbal al ex exho horta rtati tion ons s to take take a acti ction on tto o

the office of the Respondent No.1 from which the aforesaid response

 

had ha d been been,, but tto o no av avai ail. l.

Fi Fina nall lly y I ha had d got got iss issue ued d anot anothe her  r 

commu com munic nicati ation on to the Re Respo sponde ndent nt No No.1 .1 on 11th  Septem September, ber, 2002, requiring the Respondent No.1 to arrange to take back the vehicle and to refund refund its tot total al cost. A cop copy y of the sam same e is exhi exhibi bited ted as EXHIBITP/15 (Colly).

27.. 27

I sa say y tha thatt on rrece eceipt ipt of tthe he s said aid Co Comm mmun unica icatio tion, n, so some me o offi fficer cers s of 

the Respondent No.1 Company contacted me and assured me that the problem was being looked into and the problems shall be rectified and as soon as possible. I was informed tha thatt their engine engineers ers shall soon visit me and take away the vehicle vehicle for inspectio inspection n and rectificatio rectification. n. Different officials have been contacting me every fortnight with similar promises, but inspite of passage of over four months, no one has actually visited or bothered to go into the defects in the vehicle.

28.. 28

I sa say y that that wh when en al alll eff effor orts ts of mi mine ne yi yiel elde ded d no re resu sult lt an and d we went nt

comp co mple lete tely ly un unhe hear ard, d, I wa was s co cons nstr trai aine ned d to file file a co comp mpen ensa sati tion on application under Sections 36A & 2 (O), read with Section 12-B, of the Mono Mo nopol polie ies s an and d Re Restr strict ictive ive Tra Trade de Pra Practi ctices ces Ac Act, t, 19 1969 69,, wh which ich wa was s considered as an UTP Enquiry and was numbered as UTP No.13 of  2003. I prayed vide the same, not only for holding appropriate enquiry to ascertain that the respondents have indulged in unfair and restrictive trade practices under the provisions of the MRTP Act and I has suffered loss loss an and d in inju jury ry on ac acco coun untt of un unfa fair ir an and d re rest stri rict ctiv ive e tr trad ade e pr prac acti tice ce indulged in by the Respondent, but also that to direct the Respondents to take back the car and to pay an aggregate amount of Rs.7,88,003/towards compensation compensation on account of refund of the total value of the car  and damages towards the mental and physical torture and hardship loss and damage suffered by me and to further direct them to pay

 

interest @ 24% p.a. from 18th  Marc March, h, 2002 2002,, till real realizat ization ion/paym /payment ent thereof. But since, tthe he present Pe Petition tition pr praying aying for com compensation pensation,, and is being filed immediately upon receiving the information that a separate application is required for the purpose of grant of compensation.

29.. 29

I sa say y th that at iin n UT UTP P No No.1 .13 3 of 2 200 003, 3, iin n te term rms s of th the e or orde derr date dated d 20th

November, 2003, of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent had requested the petitio petitione nerr to de deliv liver er the vehi vehicle cle to the them m for atte attend nding ing to it and rectifyi rect ifying ng any defects ther therein. ein. Cop Copies ies of commun communicat ications ions date dated d 22 nd December,, 2003 and 29th December, 2003, issued by the Respondent December Respondents s to me an and d res respo ponse nse on my beha behalf lf of are exh exhib ibite ited d as EXHIBIT-P/16 (Colly).

30.

I say that accordingly, the vehicle was delivered to the

Respondent No.2’s workshop on 10 th January, 2004 and was delivered back ba ck by me on 12th January, 2004, when I was assured that all the defects in the vehicle vehicle had bee been n attended to to.. But I took the de delivery livery of  the vehi vehicle cle

und under er th the e con condi ditio tion n of te testi sting ng th the e sam same. e.

A cop copie ies s of 

documents in this regard are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/17 (Colly).

31.. 31

I say tha thatt bu butt con contra trary ry to tthe he rresp espon onden dent’s t’s assu assuran rances ces,, the bas basic ic

defects in the vehicle have persisted.

32.. 32

I say tha thatt in F Feb ebrua ruary, ry, 2 200 003 3 wh while ile the I wa was s at D Deh ehra radun dun with with the

vehicle, there was an automatic Breach in two pieces of the Radiator  Fan of the vehicle vehicle wh which ich was no nott even an yea yearr old at the tim time. e. The same had been been replaced as th the e vehicle was u under nder warran warranty. ty. Copies of  document docu ments s relati relating ng to this are on record of this Ho Hon’bl n’ble e Court. Thi This s occurred again again in May, 200 2004 4 at Delhi. But this tim time, e, when the ve vehicle hicle was taken to the Respondent No.2’s service station, the Respondents

 

refused to replace the same stating that the warranty of the vehicle was over. A copy of the cance cancelled lled job card dat dated ed 5.5.2004 and and the earlier  Job Card of February, 2003 are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/18 (Colly).

33.

I sa say y tha that in vi vie ew of the sa said id me men ntal phys ysiica call and moneta tary ry

trouble faced by me from beginning of buying this car I prayed this Hon’ble Forum to direct the Respondent to grant me a compensation amou am ounti nting ng to Rs. Rs.7,8 7,88, 8,003 003//- tow toward ards s

com compen pensat sation ion on ac accou count nt of 

refund of the total value of the car and damages towards the mental and physical torture and hardship.

DEPONENT VERIFICATION

Verified Veri fied at New Del Delhi hi on this

th day of

Nove Novembe mber, r, 200 2006 6 tha thatt the

contents of my above Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

 

BEFORE THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI COMPENS COMP ENSATIO ATION N PET PETITION ITION NO.

OF 200 2004 4

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Anuj Ahuja

…Applicant Vs.

M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents

INDEX

S. No.

Particulars

Page No.

1.

Evidence by way of Affidavit of the Applicant Mr. Anuj Ahuja.

1 – 10

FILED BY:

[UDAY KUMAR]  ADVOCATES  ADVOC ATES FOR FOR THE APPLICA APPLICANT NT 27, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.

NEW DELHI Nove No vemb mber er

, 20 2006 06