CICILY KALLARAKKAL Vs. DEALER DIVYA AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint for return of the purchase price of the vehicle and for compensation. The complainant is represented by her power of attorney holder P. W.2.

(2.) The allegations in the complaint in brief are that persuaded by the advertisement on 16.6.1995 she placed order for purchase of Jongo Jeep manufactured by the 3rd opposite party and paid Rs.15,000/-, the balance amount of Rs.2,99,280/- was paid by DD on 13.10.1995. At the time of booking she was told that the vehicle would be delivered within 45 days of the payment of the purchase price, but the vehicle was delivered only on 19.3.1996. She suffered loss because of the delay. Soon after the purchase defects were noted. The vehicle did not give the mileage as was promised, when the same were brought to the notice of the first opposite party, the complainant was directed to have the vehicle examined by K. C. Saha and his team, they examined the vehicle following which same was taken to opposite party No.3 where repairs were attended and after repairs the vehicle was delivered on 30.11.1996 at Kottayam. Later, on 11.12.1996 defects appeared and the same was repaired by the first opposite party; there was clutch complaint on 18.12.1996 the same too was repaired at Kottayam from the dealer, and on 6.1.1997 other defects were noted, the vehicle is having several defects which make it unworthy for use. The complainant suffered loss of Rs.2 lakhs. She sent notice to which opposite parties 2 and 3 replied. Substitution of the vehicle in such circumstance would not be feasible and, therefore, the purchase price of the vehicle has to be directed to be returned with compensation.

(3.) In the version by the second opposite party, it contended, it was alleged in the complaint itself, the vehicle was purchased specifically for plying as a taxi; subsequently the same was amended to the effect that even though it was purchased for plying it as a taxi, the same is being used for the personal use of the complainant and same is her personal vehicle. The vehicle is being used for commercial purpose, the complainant is having other taxies. She has no case that the same was used for earning her livelihood. Since the vehicle is used for commercial purpose, the complainant is not a consumer. It is admitted that the complainant purchase the jeep manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, but the case that it was agreed that the vehicle would be delivered within 45 days is not true, there was no such agreement. Opposite parties 1 and 2 were dealers. The allegation that the vehicle gives only 10 kms. per litre, that it has severe jerk and get heated and other problems is not true. On 19.3.1996 and 1.7.1996 the opposite parties relinquished their dealership of manufacturer, the 3rd opposite party. Even then during the period these opposite parties repaired the vehicle of the complainant. The repairs were necessitated due to the reckless and negligent manner in which the vehicle was used. After their withdrawal as dealers complainant has direct dealing with the 3rd opposite party. The allegation that the vehicle is a sub-standard product and that it has got defects are denied and it is sought to be maintained that the defects were occasioned because of the reckless use by the complainant.