BEFORE THE MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE

PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

COMPENSATION PETITION NO. OF 2004

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. That I am resident of Delhi and working for gain at Delhi. I say

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 say that the Respondent No.1 is a limited Company very well

known in India and abroad, and is involved in the business of

manufacture of, among various other products car for private 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 I planed to bye a good and reliable diesel

car. Around the same time I came to know of the diesel car called

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 say that in advertisement the Respondent No.1 has been given

very attractive feature of their car and being influenced and 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 about it. I say that every where I had been given the similar

qualities of the car as also advertise by the respondents No.1, which for

instance were as follows:-

a) International quality diesel engine.

b) Instantly cooling Air conditioner

c) Super silent cabin

d) Mileage (on highway) of 21.16 Kms Per liter of diesel which

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 say that accordingly having sold my old reliable car approached

the Respondent No.2 with the intention to purchase the said car. 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. Subsequently I have arranged for finance facilities for the said

purpose from the ABN Amro Bank and obtained the principle loan

amount of Rs.2,89,500/- on 60 installment of Rs.6632/- over the period

in 5 years which comes to 3,97,920/- with interest. A statement of

account pertaining to said finance facilities is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/2.

8. I SAY that accordingly the said car manufactured by respondent

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/-

towards compulsory comprehensive insurance of the vehicle and

Rs.3,815/- towards the road tax. Therefore an aggregate amount 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 own pocket. So total amount spent by me in purchasing

the said car amounting of Rs.4,87,003/-.

10. I say that along with the car I was given a manual containing

manual containing information about the car and the warranty that was

provided by the respondent No.1 alognwith the car. It was stated in the

said manual that “Tata Indica is a safe car designed for quality

performance. A true copy of manual is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/4.

11. I say that the within 20 days of its delivery, the car started

malfunctioning. Initially, the car had a very poor pick up with the air

conditioner on, the air conditioner was not cooling properly and the car

was giving a strange mounting noise. Moreover, the car was giving

very low mileage of around 10-11 Kms/Lt.

12. I say that the subsequently I took the car to the Respondent 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

rectified if it persisted. A true copy of the Job Card is exhibited as

EXHIBIT-P/5.

13. I say that the problem persisted and I took the vehicle back to the

Respondent No.2 service station on 21st April, 2002. But even though

the car received its first service and all necessities were done, the

problems persisted. A copy of the job card No.2362 and the invoice is

exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/6.

14. I say that the Respondent No.2’s representative advised mean to

take the car to the Respondent No.1’s authorized services station

Triumph Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at 38 Behrampur Road, Gurgaon,

which is about 50 Kms distant from my place. In the hope of complete

rectification of the various problems, I left the car with the said service

station vide job card No.585 dated 1st May, 2002. On delivery, I was

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. I say that the car was back at the said service station on 7 th May,

2002, vide job card No.700, when the applicant was ifnroemd that the

car will be thoroughly checked. The car was delivered 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 problems had worsened, and now within five minutes of

switching on the air conditioners, the engine was stalling. 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 was coming behind the car crashed into its bumper.

The vehicle was carrying iron rods, one of which went inside the

bumper. Though the rod was pulled out, it left a permanent gaping hole

in the bumper. More importantly, this incident left the me completely

shaken and cursing the day when I had bought the car.

17. The car was towed away, this time, to the workshop of another

one of the repsodnent No.1’s dealers called Autolinks at 1/1, Railway

Site Industriazl Estate, New Rohtak Roa,d New Delhi. 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. I say that in the aforesaid workshop I have lodged the following

Complaint.

1. Low pick up with air conditions,

2. Missing and Ignition out.

3. Air conditioner less effective,

4. Low average (11KMs/Lt.)

19. I say that once again there was nothing to show against 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. I say that thereafter, the problem of the car suddenly stopping

after couple of minutes of the air conditioner being started, has

persisted. On many occasions, the car suddenly stopped in middle of

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. I say that the car has been taken to other authorized service

stations of the Respondent No.1, but let alone rectifying the problem,

the specialists of the Respondent No1. have failed to even diagnose

the problem. Once or twice, after receiving the car, the service 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 have not been the only defects in the car. Other problems
have been cropping up, which may or may not be related to the

aforestated basic defects. Various spare parts had to be changed,

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 to be changed. A copy of various job and receipts showing

change of such spares parts are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/11 (Colly).

23. I say that there seems to be some permanent manufacturing

defect in the car which could not be rectified. Against all the

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. Since, I was up till his neck with the Respondent No.1’s so

called high performing car, therefore I personally handed over a

communication dated 21st May, 2002, on 22nd May, 2002, to the

Respondent No.1, to which there has been no response. A copy of the

same is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/12.

24. I say that subsequently, I had got to issued a notice dated 15 th

June, 2002, to both the Respondents, on 18 th June, 2002. A copy of the

same is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/13.

25. I say that on receipt of the said notice, there was a response

from the Respondent No.1, that the matter was being looked into. No

more was heard from them thereafter. A copy of the response dated

27th June, 2002 is exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/14.

26. I say that there were several verbal exhortations to take action to

the office of the Respondent No.1 from which the aforesaid response
had been, but to no avail. Finally I had got issued another

communication to the Respondent No.1 on 11 th September, 2002,

requiring the Respondent No.1 to arrange to take back the vehicle and

to refund its total cost. A copy of the same is exhibited as EXHIBIT-

P/15 (Colly).

27. I say that on receipt of the said Communication, some officers 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 that their engineers shall soon visit

me and take away the vehicle for inspection and rectification. 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. I say that when all efforts of mine yielded no result and went

completely unheard, I was constrained to file a compensation

application under Sections 36A & 2 (O), read with Section 12-B, of the

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, which was

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 and injury on account of unfair and restrictive trade practice

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 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 March, 2002, till realization/payment

thereof. But since, the present Petition praying for compensation, and

is being filed immediately upon receiving the information that a separate

application is required for the purpose of grant of compensation.

29. I say that in UTP No.13 of 2003, in terms of the order dated 20 th

November, 2003, of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondent had requested

the petitioner to deliver the vehicle to them for attending to it and

rectifying any defects therein. Copies of communications dated 22 nd

December, 2003 and 29th December, 2003, issued by the Respondents

to me and response on my behalf of are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/16

(Colly).

30. I say that accordingly, the vehicle was delivered to the

Respondent No.2’s workshop on 10th January, 2004 and was delivered

back by me on 12th January, 2004, when I was assured that all the

defects in the vehicle had been attended to. But I took the delivery of

the vehicle under the condition of testing the same. A copies of

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

31. I say that but contrary to the respondent’s assurances, the basic

defects in the vehicle have persisted.

32. I say that in February, 2003 while the I was at Dehradun with the

vehicle, there was an automatic Breach in two pieces of the Radiator

Fan of the vehicle which was not even an year old at the time. The

same had been replaced as the vehicle was under warranty. Copies of

documents relating to this are on record of this Hon’ble Court. This

occurred again in May, 2004 at Delhi. But this time, when the vehicle

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 cancelled job card dated 5.5.2004 and the earlier

Job Card of February, 2003 are exhibited as EXHIBIT-P/18 (Colly).

33. I say that in view of the said mental physical and monetary

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

amounting to Rs.7,88,003/- towards compensation on account of

refund of the total value of the car and damages towards the mental

and physical torture and hardship.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on this th day of November, 2006 that 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

COMPENSATION PETITION NO. OF 2004

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Anuj Ahuja …Applicant

Vs.

M/s Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd.

& Ors. …Respondents

INDEX

S. Particulars Page
No. No.

1. Evidence by way of Affidavit of the Applicant 1 – 10

Mr. Anuj Ahuja.

FILED BY:

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

NEW DELHI
November , 2006