| Address: Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, 221004 |
| Website: www.service.tatamotors.com |
I purchased my TATA INDICA VISTA (TDI engine) vehicle with registration no UP 65 BP 0942 from M/s Brijlax Motors, Sigra, Varanasi in December’2013. I also entered into a contract agreement with TATA Motors for its Extended Warranty of two years.
All required schedules for preventive maintenance were adhered timely at the authorized service center of TATA MOTORS.
The vehicle met with an accident and was attended in April’2015 at 28992 KMs at authorized service center of Tata Motors under coverage of Insurance.
The vehicle was sent to authorized service center on 06/12/2016 at 55244 KMs due to abnormal sound coming from the vehicle. After examining the cause, service center informed that its engine is damaged. Since the vehicle was covered under extended warranty, a request was made to the service centre for assessment and sending it to Warranty Office of TATA Motors for approval.
Due to huge delay (approximately one month now), I repeatedly chased with Mr Arvind, CSM/Lucknow for early decision. Now service centre informed me that warranty coverage cannot be provided to the vehicle for its repair since it met with an accident nearly 02 years ago.
I do not agree with the above rejection of warranty and want to highlight following points:
a)The engine problem cannot occur as a consequence of an accident occurred two years back. The vehicle has run for additional 26, 000 KMs after accident at 28, 992 KMs proving that Engine was not affected at the time of accident.
b)Being a Mechanical Engineer and having worked in Railway Engine Design wing at Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, Indian Railway, I also have sufficient technical knowledge about it. Consequential failure in Engine (after accident) will occur very soon after the accident within few days or in a month.
c)Rejection by Warranty wing of TATA MOTORS due to previous accident is completely baseless and illogical. They have not understood the technicalities involved in it and simply rejected it citing previous accident.
d)Moreover, the accidental repair was carried out at service centre of TATA MOTORs. TATA MOTOR’s technical team at the service centre and the Insurance surveyor both examined the extent of damage for its repair and its admissibility. They did not find any need to repair Engine as it was not damaged. After the accidental repair, the vehicle performed well for nearly two years covering additional 26, 000 KMs.
In my opinion, it is a case of breach of warranty contract by TATA MOTORS and I will have to go for legal action if my warranty claim is not accepted under warranty contract.
(S. B. Patel)
Dy. Chief Mechanical Engineer
Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi
Contact me at [protected]