Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Raipur, Chattishgarh

AMRUTA BAI

Wife Of AGAR DAS MANIKPURI

Resident Of 1513, RAM NAGAR,

THANA GUDHIYARI,

RAIPUR PINCODE 492001. .

Chhattisgarh …Applicants

Versus

JAIKA AUTOMOBILES & FINANCE PVT.LTD

Ring Road No.1, Gram: Raipura, Dist.: Raipur(C.G)

Phone (0771) 3051400

2)Mr Cyrus P Mistry

Chairman

Tata Motors

Bombay House

24, Homi Mody Street

Mumbai 400 001

India

3) Divisional Manager,

DO RAIPUR,KRISHNA COMPLEX,

Second,Floor No.1,

JAIL ROAD, KUTCHERY CHOWK,

RAIPUR-492001

…Respondents
 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant is a resident of 1513, RAM NAGAR, THANA GUDHIYARI, RAIPUR

PINCODE 492001. .

That the facts of the present case, in brief, are as follows.

2. That applicant had purchased Tata Venture bearing vehicle registration number CG-

04/HR-6326, Engine number – 4751DT18AVYS06380, CH. NO- MAT483539EYA01529,

Reg date 14/01/2015 from JAIKA AUTOMOBILES & FINANCE PVT.LTD (Add- Ring

road no-1, Gram: Raipura, Dist: Raipur(C.G), dealer of Tata motors which was financed

by TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD, Raipur & insured by United India Insurance from

9/1/2015(policy number 694836).

3. That the vehicle was giving problem to applicant from the date of purchase and she

had informed respondent number 1 about the defects continuously by going to their

outlet but she was never attended by the official of respondent no 1. (Annexed is

affidavit of applicant in this behalf).

4. That applicant had informed respondent number 1 on various dates & occasions that

the vehicle is making unusual engine noise, there were various incidences of engine

overheating, vehicle was misfiring and hard starting but the respondent number 1 Jaika

automobile did not paid attention to the problems in the abovementioned vehicle.
5. That the engine of the aforesaid vehicle was overheated everyday due to unknown

reasons. My client requested the respondent no 1 check the leakage in the hoses and

radiator but respondent no 1 had never bothered to check the vehicle despite his

continuous request to him..

6 That similar incidence took place in the month of March2015, When the vehicle

stopped midway near Sihawa, District Dhamtari. Applicant tried contacting respondent

no 1 to bring crane to take the vehicle to his service centre but he did not offer him any

kind of help to him & when he brought vehicle to his service centre at his expense you

did not offer any kind of service/ help to him without charges as it was expected from

you.

7. My client brought the vehicle to service centre of respondent no 1 on August 15, 2015

and asked him to rectify his vehicle as per the prevailing warranty or insurance coverage

bought by him forcibly from United India Insurance bearing policy number 694836

8.. That respondent number 1 took signature of my client on blank form/Job Card

without explaining him about the finding of investigation done on vehicle taking

advantage of his lower economical, educational and social status and his dominant

position as automobile dealer of a big automobile congomarate (Tata Motors)

9. That when respondent number 1 requested him to deliver the vehicle after three days

you the respondent number 2 gave him the estimate of more than seventy thousand

rupees by concocting a false story that coolant was leaked which caused the engine to

seize as result of damage to vehicle from external object but in reality vehicle had

problem from the date of purchase and engine was giving trouble to my client

continuously from the date of purchase of vehicle.

10. That if at all by any chance concocted story is believed to be true or taken on its face

value than respondent number 1 would have called respondent number 3 or its
representative / surveyor of the insurance company on the request of applicant since

she was unable to convey the technical problem to the representative of respondent

number three since he was a technical person and facilitated him to fill the claim form

because according to respondent number 1 coolant was leaked due to accidental

damage and not a mechanical failure.

11. That applicant , her lawyer and her relatives are approaching respondent number 1

for past ten months for the delivery of vehicle but they are forcing her to pay the

exhorbitant amount despite knowing fully well that they are covered under their warranty

terms.

12.That respondent number 1 and respondent number 2 are using their dominant

position to induce applicant to pay for the repairing cost of engine.

13.That applicant had called respondent number 3 / United India Insurance company to

send its surveyor at the service centre of Noticee number 1/Jaika automobiles but it has

not shown any interest in fulfilling its commitment given to applicant at the time of

purchase of insurance policy.

14.That applicant had called respondent number 2 / Tata motors explaining him about

the problems faced by my client since my client purchased the vehicle on the goodwill of

notice number 2 and notice number 1 Jaika automobile is a dealer of notice number.

Noticee number 2 was explained in crystal clear manner that vehicle was continuously

giving problem to my client but it has done nothing to resolve the problems faced by my

client therefore notice number is vicariously liable to the act of notice number 1.

15.That applicant is a poor lady who has taken loan from Tata finance to purchase the

abovementioned vehicle for the personal use but non cooperation of respondent

number 1,2,3 have brought her into the dire financial problem where she is finding

herself hapless and helpless.

16.That this Hon’ble Forum has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the same as

the opposite party is located at Raipur. Hence, the matter falls within the territorial

jurisdiction of this forum.

17. That have inflicted enormous amount of mental agony and financial loss on the

applicant.

18. That the present applicant is within the limitation as prescribed under the Act

because the deficient service was provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.

19. That the applicant has not filed any similar complaint before Hon’ble Court. No such

or similar complaint is pending adjudication before any competent court of law.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

i) To direct respondent number 1 and respondent number 2 to replace this defective

vehicle with a new vehicle of the same model.

ii) Rs 50,000 for mental agony and physical strain and Rs 5000 as cost of this notice

suffered by the Complainant and his family members

iii) Direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this

application.

For which act of kindness, the Complainant shall, as is duty bound, ever pray.

Raipur Complainant

Dated

Verification:-

Verified that the contents of Para nos. 1 to 19 of the complaint are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been

concealed there from.

Raipur

Dated: Complainant
AFFIDAVIT

AMRUTA BAI

Wife Of AGAR DAS MANIKPURI

Resident Of 1513, RAM NAGAR,

THANA GUDHIYARI,

RAIPUR PINCODE 492001. .

Chhattisgarh …Applicants

Versus

JAIKA AUTOMOBILES & FINANCE PVT.LTD

Ring Road No.1, Gram: Raipura, Dist.: Raipur(C.G)

Phone (0771) 3051400

2)Mr Cyrus P Mistry

Chairman

Tata Motors

Bombay House

24, Homi Mody Street

Mumbai 400 001

India

3) Divisional Manager,

DO RAIPUR,KRISHNA COMPLEX,

Second,Floor No.1,

JAIL ROAD, KUTCHERY CHOWK,

RAIPUR-492001

…Respondents
 AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Smt. Amruta Bai, W/o Agar Das Manikpuri, R/o 1513, RAM NAGAR, THANA

GUDHIYARI, RAIPUR PINCODE 492001. .

I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the complainant in the above case, thoroughly conversant

with the facts and circumstances of the present case and competent to

swear this affidavit.

2. That the facts contained in the paragraph below may be read as an

integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.:

Thatappliantt had purchased Tata Venture bearing vehicle registration

number CG-04/HR-6326, Engine number – 4751DT18AVYS06380, CH.

NO- MAT483539EYA01529, Reg date 14/01/2015 from JAIKA

AUTOMOBILES & FINANCE PVT.LTD (Add- Ring road no-1, Gram:

Raipura, Dist: Raipur(C.G), dealer of Tata motors which was financed by

TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD, Raipur & insured by United India

Insurance from 9/1/2015(policy number 694836).

3. That the vehicle was giving problem to applicant from the date of purchase and she

had informed respondent number 1 about the defects continuously by going to their

outlet but she was never attended by the official of respondent no 1. (Annexed is

affidavit of applicant in this behalf).

4. That applicant had informed respondent number 1 on various dates that the vehicle is

making unusual engine noise, there were various incidences of engine overheating,

vehicle was misfiring and hard starting but the respondent number 1 Jaika automobile

did not paid attention to the problems in the abovementioned vehicle.

5. That the engine of the aforesaid vehicle was overheated everyday due to unknown

reasons. My client requested the respondent no 1 check the leakage in the hoses and

radiator but respondent no 1 had never bothered to check the vehicle despite his

continuous request to him..

6 That similar incidence took place in the month of March2015, When the vehicle

stopped midway near Sihawa, District Dhamtari. Applicant tried contacting respondent

no 1 to bring crane to take the vehicle to his service centre but he did not offer him any

kind of help to him & when he brought vehicle to his service centre at his expense you

did not offer any kind of service/ help to him without charges as it was expected from

you.

7. My client brought the vehicle to service centre of respondent no 1 on August 15, 2015

and asked him to rectify his vehicle as per the prevailing warranty or insurance coverage

bought by him forcibly from United India Insurance bearing policy number 694836

7. That respondent number 1 took signature of my client on blank form/Job Card without

explaining him about the finding of investigation done on vehicle taking advantage of his

lower economical, educational and social status and his dominant position as automobile

dealer of a big automobile congomarate (Tata Motors)

9. That when respondent number 1 requested him to deliver the vehicle after three days

you the noticee number 2 gave him the estimate of more than seventy thousand rupees

by concocting a false story that coolant was leaked which caused the engine to seize as

result of damage to vehicle from external object but in reality vehicle had problem from

the date of purchase and engine was giving trouble to my client continuously from the

date of purchase of vehicle.

10. That if at all by any chance concocted story is believed to be true or taken on its face

value than respondent number 1 would have called respondent number 3 or its

representative / surveyor of the insurance company on the request of applicant since

she was unable to convey the technical problem to the representative of respondent

number three since he was a technical person and facilitated him to fill the claim form

because according to respondent number 1 coolant was leaked due to accidental

damage and not a mechanical failure.

11. That applicant , her lawyer and her relatives are approaching respondent number 1

for past ten months for the delivery of vehicle but they are forcing her to pay the

exhorbitant amount despite knowing fully well that they are covered under their warranty

terms.

12.That respondent number 1 and respondent number 2 are using their dominant

position to induce applicant to pay for the repairing cost of engine.

13.That applicant had called respondent number 3 / United India Insurance company to

send its surveyor at the service centre of Noticee number 1/Jaika automobiles but it has

not shown any interest in fulfilling its commitment given to applicant at the time of

purchase of insurance policy.

14.That applicant had called respondent number 2 / Tata motors explaining him about

the problems faced by my client since my client purchased the vehicle on the goodwill of

notice number 2 and notice number 1 Jaika automobile is a dealer of notice number.

Noticee number 2 was explained in crystal clear manner that vehicle was continuously

giving problem to my client but it has done nothing to resolve the problems faced by my

client therefore notice number is vicariously liable to the act of notice number 1.

15.That applicant is a poor lady who has taken loan from Tata finance to purchase the

abovementioned vehicle for the personal use but non cooperation of respondent

number 1,2,3 have brought her into the dire financial problem where she is finding

herself hapless and helpless.

16.That this Hon’ble Forum has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the same as

the opposite party is located at Raipur. Hence, the matter falls within the territorial

jurisdiction of this forum.

17. That have inflicted enormous amount of mental agony and financial loss on the

applicant.

18. That the present applicant is within the limitation as prescribed under the Act

because the deficient service was provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party.

19. That the applicant has not filed any similar complaint before Hon’ble Court. No such

or similar complaint is pending adjudication before any competent court of law.

Raipur

Dated: Deponent

Verification

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the

contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No

part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.

Verified this .......day of 20.......at........

Raipur

Date: Deponent