The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) passed the order while upholding the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Commission which had directed TELCO to pay the compensation.
The NCDRC in its order noted that the car was taken for repairs 36 times between May 1999 to November 2000 and almost "every part of the vehicle had some problem or the other", the most serious of which pertained to the engine.
"We note that admittedly during the period of warranty the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop on 36 occasions from May 1999 to November 2000... Almost every part of the vehicle had some problem or the other. The most serious complaint pertained to the engine.
"The very fact that appellants replaced the entire engine indicates that whatever defects it had were inherent in its manufacturing which could not be removed," the bench presided by Justice Ashok Bhan said.
In its appeal against the state commission's order, TELCO had said that it had replaced the engine, after the warranty period was over, as a gesture of goodwill.
This contention was rejected by the NCDRC which said, "No car manufacturer would change an engine if it could be rectified through repairs.