Misleading Car Mileage Claims, Mandi District Commission Holds TATA Motors And Its Authorized Dealer Liable For Unfair Trade Practices
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), found Tata Motors Limited and its authorized dealer responsible for failing to provide the car with the advertised mileage. They were held accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and were directed...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), found Tata Motors Limited and its authorized dealer responsible for failing to provide the car with the advertised mileage. They were held accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and were directed to refund the car's purchase price, compensate the complainant, and cover the legal costs.
Brief Facts:
Shri Hira Lal (“Complainant”) purchased a Tata Tiago (“Car”) from Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (“Dealer”). He was led to believe by the sales representatives that the vehicle would achieve a fuel efficiency of 23.84 kilometres per litre. However, upon purchasing the car, he discovered that the actual mileage was only between 12 to 15 kilometres per litre. Furthermore, the car exhibited various defects, including water ingress through the doors. The Complainant contacted TATA Motors Limited, the manufacturer. He was assured that the defects would be resolved after the first servicing, however, the defects persisted even after the car was serviced. As a result, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”).
The complainant alleged that these issues were not adequately addressed by the manufacturer and the authorized dealer of the car. He claimed that they had engaged in unfair trade practices and had provided deficient service. In response, the dealer contested the complaint, raising preliminary objections about its maintainability. The dealer argued that the vehicle’s fuel efficiency depended on various factors. Further, it also presented evidence suggesting that the complaint was baseless and that a test drive conducted by the Chief Manager disproved the allegations. On the other hand, the manufacturer did not appear before the District Commission, thus the matter was proceeded against the manufacturer ex-parte.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission acknowledged that the complainant was indeed misled by the manufacturer and the car dealer due to the advertisements and assurances made regarding the car's fuel efficiency. Their decision was based on the evidence presented by the complainant, including the Tiago cars pamphlet, which advertised a mileage of 23.84 kilometres per litre. Additionally, the District Commission considered an expert test of the car, revealing that the actual mileage was significantly lower at 15.45 kilometres per litre, well below the claimed average. The same expert also noted the issue of water ingress through the rear doors and window glass panes.
Based on these considerations, the District Commission held that the dealer and the manufacturer engaged in unfair trade practices and that the car suffered from inherent manufacturing defects, which remained un-addressed. Consequently, the District Commission directed the dealer and the manufacturer to refund ₹5,23,462/- to the complainant. They were also directed to pay the complainant compensation amounting to ₹20,000/- and to cover litigation costs of ₹10,000/-.
Case: Hira Lal vs Tata Motors Limited and Anr.
Case No.: CC/160/2017
Advocate for the Complainant: Abhishek Lakhanpal
Advocate for the Respondent: Dinesh Kumar Sharma for Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Click Here To Read/Download Order