LAXMICHAND MAVJI SHAH Vs. MAEGAWARE COMPUTERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant a Co-operative Bank, presented this complaint against the opposite parties claiming replacement of the Ambassador Car or its price which the complainant purchased on 25.10.1989. Admitted facts are that a new Diesel Ambassador Car bearing No. MH-90/84 was purchased by the complainant from M/s. V. J. and Sons, Kolhapour for a consideration of Rs.1,63,515/- which has been manufactured by M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the said car required immediate repairs and was sent to the garage of opposite party No.1 for repairs during the month of December, 1989 and January, 1990. It is also an admitted fact that as per the entries on the job cards, the said car was repaired accordingly.

(2.) The allegations made by the complainant in the present case, are that the car was purchased for the use of the Bank. An amount of Rs.1,63,515/- was paid on 25.10.1989 vide Cheque No.733471. It is further alleged that the said car was delivered by M/s. V. J. Sons, Kolhapur to the complainant on 9.11.89 when it was showing 2039 kms. of running. According to the complainant, till the said car registered running of about 14000 kms. it was not running properly and failed to perform on many occasions. The complainant, therefore, was required to take the said car to the garage of opposite party No.1 for repairs. The main allegations of the complainant are that from the date of delivery of the car to the complainant, within a period of 108 days, till about 16th March, 1990, the car was required to be kept with opposite party No.1, the Dealer for 36 days for repairs. It is further alleged that the car was actually used by the complainant for 10,000 kms. and the car was used by the opposite party No.1 whilst it was in for repairs, for about 4000 kms. It is lastly alleged that the engine of the said car was required to be overhauled by the opposite party No.1 and the overhaul required 20 days and they then informed the complainant by a letter dt.31.3.1990 to take delivery of the car. It is, therefore, alleged by the complainant that the defective motor vehicle was supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties which failed to give a performance which one would expect from a new motor car. Due to the failure of the said car to give a normal performance which any common consumer would expect from anew car; complainant does not want to take back the vehicle from the garage of the opposite party No.1 and claims either replacement of the vehicle with a new vehicle of similar description or refund of the price with interest at the prevalent Bank rate along with the compensation.

(3.) Both the opposite parties filed their written version and denied the allegations. Apart from the denial that the motor vehicle was defective, the opposite parties also challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission to enquire into this complaint