Name of company/service: Tata Motors (Passenger Car Business Unit or PCBU) Pune
On 28th Feb 09, I had purchased a Indica Vista (Terra)from ASL Motors, Jamshedpur. Less than a month after purchase, the car was showing up serious manufacturing defects. After the dealer failed to resolve the problems after several attempts, the issue was taken up with the Marketing Division, Kolkata, of Tata Motors. After failing to get the problems rectified with their intervention, it took up the matter with the Plant Head of PCBU, Pune on 8th May 2009. Surprisingly, he did not even cared to read this mail, according to the information I could get through my source at PCBU. When I was convened that I was sold a prototype car by Tata Motors through its dealer, I made an RTI application on 16th Dec 11 seeking information along with proof regarding date of manufacture of the car, engine and chassis. To my utter surprise,I received a letter from the Plant Head (PCBU) dated 8th Jan 12 that RTI Act 05 is not applicable to Tata Motors. He further added “however, as a responsible organisation, we are forwarding your application to our Marketing Department for necessary action”. What is more shocking is that when I replied to the Plant Head requesting him to indicate the sections of the RTI Act 05 under which Tata Motors has been exempted from disclosure of information, it was a long silence from the “responsible organisation”. I sent a e-mail on 11th Mar 12 to the Plant Head – sort of a wake up mail – to which he again responded that the matter has been referred to their Marketing Dept at Kolkata. In their response, the Marketing Division head gives me information without supporting proof thereon. When insisted upon for the proof, the officer has the arrogance, not once but twice, to tell me “the information you have sought has already been provided to you thru my mail reply”, as if I do not know English language. Now, it looks like that they have thrown the issue on the dealer to sort it out. According to a strict interpretation, it is Tata Motors (PCBU) who have sold this car to me through its dealer. It is a “Tata Motors” car and not “ASL Motors” car and so the primary responsibility rests with Tata Motors for selling a prototype car. Finally, let Tata Motors prove conclusively that it is not a prototype car or as a responsible/ethical company tell their dealer to replace the car with a new car. Tata Motors should realise that a customer’s voice does not go unheard of in today’s market and legal frame work under which he enjoys his rights. In one way or the other it is bound to bounce on them. Last, but not the least one should know is that I had worked for this very company for 38 long years at its Jamshedpur Plant.