R K BAJAJ Vs. WHEEL WORLD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellate jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Mr. R. K. Bajaj against the order dated 23.12.1999 by District Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh in Complaint Case No.1186/93/m/98. The District Forum had in its order directed the opposite parties M/s. Wheel World to pay Rs.12,000/- towards the compensation in addition to interest @ 8% on the booking amount of Rs.10,000/- from May, 1998 to 12 June, 1990 within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) In pursuance to an advertisement given by the respondents the appellant Mr. R. K. Bajaj paid Rs.10,000/- towards the booking amount of Montana Diesel Passenger Car in May, 1998. The appellant has averred that the respondents had assured to pay interest @ 12% on the booking amount as the date of delivery of the vehicle was not specified at the time of the booking. On June 12,1990 the car was delivered after the appellant deposited balance of the price of the car i. e. Rs.1,18,000/- to the respondent No.1. The appellant has further averred that only 3 days after the delivery of the car its engine got seized at Chandigarh. The same when inspected by Swami Motors, Chandigarh, the authorised dealer of opposite parties, it was found that the Head Gasket of the engine had burst. The appellant/complainant has also alleged that the advertisement in pursuance to which he had decided to buy the above mentioned vehicle specifically mentioned the engine to be of Mitusubishi make. When examined it was found to be of some unknown make and of inferior quality which resulted in above mentioned seizure. However, no copy of the above mentioned advertisement has been placed on record. The appellant has further alleged that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not respond to his communications and he had to visit respondent No.1 personally to explain the various defects occurring one after the other to the new vehicle. The appellant has also averred that he had to spend Rs.20,000/- in getting replaced the various parts of the car within first year of its purchase when it was still under the warranty period. A letter dated nil addressed to respondent No.3 M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd.25-26, Industrial Suburb, II, Tumkur Road, Bangalore-500 022 impleaded as respondent No.3 gives the details of the defects which occurred during the warranty period and the consequent problems faced by the appellant/complainant. The car was shown to respondent No.4, M/s. Wheel Drives, 25/6, Ram Darbar, phase-II, Chandigarh as directed by respondent No.3. However, the complainant/respondent has alleged that since it could not be made roadworthy, he on 15.2.1992 visited respondent No.1 at Ambala personally and requested for replacing the above mentioned vehicle with a petrol car. Opposite party No.2 agreed to replace his diesel run car with a new Montana Petrol Engine, on 7.8.1992 and the difference in the price of Rs.7,500/- was paid by the appellant and same acknowledged vide Receipt No.338 dated 7.8.1992. The complainant has further averred that actually this car sold as new was a repainted one and it was not a 1992 model but some old and used car. Further the complainant has alleged that this car given to him subsequently being of the same make, is not in working order and is lying parked in a garage since 1993. The respondent/complainant has alleged that he has been deprived of the pleasure of using new car and rather he has been put to lot of inconvenience and harassment for selling a car not matching with the description in the advertisement. Further due to apathetic attitude of the respondents towards the problems faced by him on account of this defective vehicle the appellant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs.2,03,000/-.

(3.) The case was contested by respondent No.1 Wheel World, 126-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) only and the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte. In the reply filed by respondent No.1 on 2.5.1994 it is stated that as per Clause 9 of the Terms and Conditions contained in the Agreement Form 8% interest on the booking amount was payable in the event of delivery only. The respondent/opposite party has averred that appellant/complainant was unnecessarily creating an issue about the engine of car being not a Mitusubishi make. However, they have clarified that vide Clause 19 of Common Order Purchase Booking Form the right of technical specifications is reserved with the manufacturer only and consequently respondent No.1 cannot be held liable as they are only local dealers of the above mentioned manufacturer. The liability for any manufacturing defect in vehicle is of respondent No.3, M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. , 25-26, Industrial Suburb II, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. The respondent has further averred that complainant's vehicle was running without any problem and he refuted the allegation of engine of the disputed vehicle having been seized at any stage. To controvert the allegation of the appellant/complainant about the various defects and problems in the car, the respondents have stated that appellant/complainant visited their premises on 17.6.1990 and requested them to extend the mileage of his first free service from 1500 kms. to 2000 kms. as appellant was planning to go on a long trip with his family. A letter written by the appellant has been placed on the record stating the same. The respondents have averred that had there been any problem with the vehicle the appellant would have mentioned the same to them and a long trip in the same vehicle with so many defects would not have been possible to be undertaken by him. The respondents have further stated that the change sought by the appellant from the diesel to petrol version of the car was for change of taste and because of the petrol run vehicle is noise free as compared to the one run on diesel. The petrol car given in exchange for the diesel one was stated to be brand new and given to the appellant as first owner. The allegations of same being repainted or old or used one were vehemently denied.