TELCO Vs. R K KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 1.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, New Delhi, the present appeal has been filed on behalf of the M/s. Telco, who was O. P. No.2 before the District Forum. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Sh. R. K. Khanna, purchased a car TATA Indica from M/s. Concord Motor Ltd. , New Delhi on 2.4.1999 for Rs.2,93,125/ -. The car was manufactured by appellant Telco Limited and it carried a warranty for 18 months. According to the respondent Sh. R. K. Khanna, after run of only 1413 kilometres, the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 11.9.1999 as the AC was not working and the car was consuming more engine oil. Moreover, it also failed in pollution norms. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 30.9.1999 and again the vehicle failed in pollution norms. According to the respondent the defect was not rectified on 3.3.2000. Alternator was not working, it was to be replaced as battery was not getting charged. Again the vehicle was taken to Concord Motors on 7.4.2000 for rectification of defects and certain new defects were also detected which were entered in the job card. According to the respondent none of the defects were rectified and the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 15.5.2000, 12.6.2000 and 7.12.2000. The respondent Shri R. K. Khanna was told that the vehicle needs engine replacement and (CSA) was done as the vehicle was consuming excessive engine oil. Respondent No.1 was told by respondent No.2 that the new engine will be replaced after the same is received from the appellant M/s. Telco. The vehicle was again taken to the workshop on 28.8.2000 for failure of front axle, front shockers heater plugs wheel rim, etc. some of these items were replaced, AC was rectified, after one year of purchase of vehicle. The respondent No.1 was informed by the respondent No.2 that the appellant has changed their policy and M/s. Telco have refused to replace the engine and instead directed respondent No.2 to overhaul the engine. Not satisfied by it, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 Mr. R. K. Khanna. The District Forum considering the history of the vehicle and the various defects pointed out by the respondent No.1 and mentioned in the job card found that there were manufacturing defects in car engine and hence directed the appellant to replace the engine with a new engine and also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/ - for mental agony under gone by respondent No.1 and also directed respondent No.2 M/s. Condord Motors to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/ - for deficiencies in service in not rectifying the AC as soon as it was brought to their notice on 30.9.1999.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order M/s. Telco the manufacturer of the vehicle filed this appeal. The appeal is pressed mainly on the ground that the vehicle was not suffering from any manufacturing defects and due to running of the vehicle the problems occurred as normal wear and tear. It was further stated that the defects alleged in the complaint are operational in nature and the same could not be termed as manufacturing defects it is also stated by the appellant that respondent No.1 drove the vehicle carelessly, negligently and bending of the wheel rim proves the careless and negligent driving of the vehicle. It was further stated that the alleged failure of pollution check was not on account of any manufacturing defect but because of use of adulterated diesel.

(3.) HEARD both the parties and considered the material on record. From a perusal of the history of the car, it appears that so many defects have occurred within a period of one year and respondent No.1 has to take the vehicle to the workshop very often, almost after 15 days or one month. Still defects pointed out by respondent No.1 persisted. It is not denied by respondent No.2 that they found some defects in the vehicle which could not be rectified and hence the engine was to be replaced. Since the vehicle was within the warranty period. It was the bounden duty of the appellant to replace the engine. Respondent No.1 was not concerned about the policy of the company. He has spent his hard earned money in the purchase of the vehicle and if it had to be taken to the workshop so often, it must have caused immense mental agony to respondent No.1 besides harassment. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 2.4.1999 and within a period of one year. It had to be taken to the workshop about 10 times which is apparent from the job cards. The failure of the pollution control itself shows some manufacturing defects in the new vehicle. Under these circumstances the District Forum was right in holding that the vehicle manufactured by the appellant had manufacturing defects and accordingly ordered for the replacement of the engine and not the vehicle. The compensation awarded for mental agony cannot be said to be excessive considering the circumstance of the case.