ASHA LUGANI Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the sole-proprietor of M/s Asha Fashions 1893, Uday Chand Marg, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-24. The firm has been exporting fashion garments for the last several years to the various countries. She, with the funds of the firm, purchased a Premier Padmini BU/ac car from respondent No.2 Prem Nath Motors for a sum of Rs.1,53,816/-. She took delivery of the car on 18.5.90. The car is being manufactured by respondent No.1. Before taking delivery of the car, it is alleged, she found several defects and deficiencies in the car. She was informed by respondent No.2 that the defects were of minor nature and would be repaired at the time of first service. On the assurance given by the respondent No.2, she took delivery of the car.

(2.) It is next pleaded that since the time the car has been delivered to the complainant, it has been giving trouble to her. There are various defects in the car, which could not be rectified by the respondents at the three services. Ultimately she left the car at the workshop of respondent No.2 at Mandir Marg. She, it is alleged, was informed that the engine of the car required replacement and assured that the complete engine of the car would be replaced. However, neither the engine was replaced nor the car was properly repaired. The various defects in the car, it is further alleged, still persist. Consequently she has prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the sum of Rs.1,53,860/- alongwith interest @ 24% p. a. from 4th May '90 till the date of repayment of the amount alongwith rupees one lac as damages.

(3.) The complaint has been contested by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 has proceeded against ex-parte. In their written statement respondent No.1 has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer. On 8th May'91 we directed the learned Counsel for the complainant to satisfy us that the Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the case. He was also directed to bring the balance-sheet and account books of the firm. Thereafter he made a statement on 27th May '91 that the car was purchased by the complainant in the name of M/s Asha Fashions of which the com plainant was the sole proprietor and the price of the car had been paid out of funds of the proprietorship firm.