MUVEEN AKTHAR KHAN Vs. MALIK CARS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISSATISFIED with the volume of relief granted by the District Forum, the complainant filed this appeal calculated to get the entire relief sought by him in the complaint. The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

(2.) THE complainant purchased a Tata Indica vehicle from the first opposite party, dealer of the second opposite party, on 26.2.2005. It was alleged that the car carried with it a warranty for 8 months. Contrary to the assurances of the dealer, the car was defective, so he claimed to have entrusted the said car on 4 -3 -2005 itself to the opposite party No. 1 and paid an amount of Rs. 5,896.75 towards the charges for rectification of the defects. Although 8 months guarantee was given, it continued to give one trouble or the other and had to be taken to the dealer for repairs on and off. In spite of attendance to repairs by the dealer, it was not rectified and the failure of repairs was ultimately ascribed to the inherent defects in the manufacture. Manufacturer, opposite party No. 2 failed to rectify the problem inspite of a letter written by the complainant on 22.3.2005. The complainant claimed to have given them a long rope by keeping the car for 116 days with opposite party No. 1 hoping that it would at last be repaired thoroughly and rendered problem free. But his hopes were not fulfilled. As such he filed a complaint with the following prayers: (i) To replace TATA Indica LGI V2 car with a defective free new car Or in the alternative To refund Rs. 3,44,080(Rupees three lakh forty -four thousand and eighty only) with interest @ 24% p.a. from 26.2.2005 till the date of realization. (ii) To reimburse a sum of Rs. 500 per day for the period of 20 days when the car is with the workshop of the opp. party and for a subsequent period from 6.5.2005 to till the date of replacement of the car for alternative mode of transport. (iii) To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony, hardship and serious inconvenience. (iv) To pay costs of Rs. 10,000 and pass such and further order or orders which the Hon'ble Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(3.) THE complaint came to be resisted by the opposite parties who preferred to file separate counters. Opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as the jurisdiction of this Forum was interdicted by an arbitration clause in the sale invoice. It was submitted that the invoice dated 1.3.2005 was falsely attributed as representing the charges paid for repairs within three days after the purchase. It was further submitted that the said amount was paid towards value of parts replaced by opposite party No. 1 though they never collected any labour charges for attending to the task of changing the parts. He also came up with a story that the vehicle met with an accident and all the subsequent problems were due to that accident. It seems that it met with an accident even before it ran 57 kms. and opposite party claimed that subsequently when ever they encountered any problem, those problems came to be attended to by opposite party No. 1. Ultimately it was submitted that there was no cause of action for replacing the whole vehicle and the problems were due to the after effect of the accident only. Thus the relief of replacement of the vehicle was vehemently opposed.