HIND POCKET BOOKS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DCM DAEWOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It purchased CIELO (GL) passenger car with A/c, A/T, W/CC model manufactured by OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 vide invoice No. 04010623 dated 5.1.1996 bearing registration No. DL 5C B -0814 for Rs. 4,74,410 through OP No. 2 for the use and operation by its Directors including complainant No. 2.

(2.) IT is alleged by the complainant that from the very beginning the aforesaid car has been giving a lot of trouble. After every 10 -15 days it stopped working and as a result thereof the complainants and their other executives were stranded on the road and also at very inconvenient places. The reason for the same was manufacturing defects which could not be set right though frequently the car was sent for repair. That after few days of taking the delivery of the car the following defects were noticed in the car:

(3.) AFTER the return of the car from the workshop of the OPs it was noticed that despite sending the car atleast 10 times till July 1996 that almost at the defects as stated above were existing and could not be rectified. It continued to break down on the roads during its use by the complainants and its executives. That on numerous occasions the Directors of complainant No. 1 narrrowly escaped mishap/accident when the car suddenly stopped in crowded roads and marked places. That there was no response to the telephonic and verbal requests made by the complainants for replacing the car. The OPs instead of doing the needful suggested that the complainants should add Liqui Moly Additive every time despite the fact that the car was filling with unleaded fuel. That on 10.9.1996 Shri J.L. Gulati representative of the complainant No. 1 was called for taking the delivery of the car. After taking the delivery of the car from the workship of the OPs on 10.9.1996 there was no improvement in the same. The car was taken for trial run as suggested by the OPs on 13.11.1996 though the OPs failed to provide suitable replacement as agreed to by them. The car was delivered back on 15.11.96. The OPs failed to replace the car and on their failure to replace the same they also failed to refund the amount paid to the OPs and further expenses incurred by the complainants.