HARI SINGH Vs. PAL-PEUGEOT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Hari Singh, complainant has filed this complaint to seek a direction against the O. Ps. to pay to him an amount of Rs.4,95,750/- with interest @ 18% p. a. from 15.1.1997; Rs.2,000/- p. m. for the inconvenience; Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation as disclosed in para 15 of the complaint; Rs.5,900/- as cost of starting switch and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation for supplying him a defective Pal-Peugeot 309 AC (petrol car ).

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this complaint in brief are that on 23.12.1996, he booked a Pal-Peugeot Car 309 AC (petrol) after paying an advance of Rs.25,000/-. In consequence of it, O. P. No.1 PAL-PEUGEOT LTD. allotted him a priority No.0035/00053 and intimated to pay a further amount of Rs.4,70,750/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,34,000/- and Rs.1,47,750/- through Bank Drafts and thus paid a total amount of Rs.4,95,750/- against the cost of the aforesaid vehicle to O. P. No.1. The aforesaid car was delivered by O. P. No.2 to the complainant on 15.1.1997 along with a Warranty Card dated 15.1.1997 (Ex.7 ).

(3.) It is the grievance of the complainant that at the time of taking the delivery of the car, a 'noise' was noticed by him and he refused to take the delivery of the car. One Shri Dayanand Kasliwal, owner of O. P. No.2; who was known; persuaded him that this 'noise' coming out from the car would disappear after running 2000-4000 kms. The complainant felt assured and took delivery of the car on the persuation of the owner of O. P. No.2. The aforesaid noise in the vehicle however did not disappear and inspite of repeated reminders sent, nothing was done by the O. Ps. It is further the case of the complainant that on 26.11.1997 one Shri V. C. Gharge, Regional Service Manager of PAL-PEUGEOT Ltd. , Delhi inspected the car in question and found that there is 'noise' in the engine and the AC is also less effective and he got the car kept under observation. Thereafter nothing was done by the O. Ps. The complainant wrote letters to O. P. No.2 on 4.12.1997 and 8.1.1998 and informed the O. P. No.1 through telephone also that after the inspection of the vehicle by the Service Manager, nothing has been done. By letter dated 10.2.1998 O. P. No.1 informed the complainant that they are sending their Service Engineer for the check-up of the vehicle. In the month of May, 1998 one Shri Shashi Kant Nalavadi, Service Engineer of O. P. No.1 from Mumbai came to check-up the vehicle. The Service Engineer found that the 'noise' which is coming out of the engine is not of the 'alternator' but may be of water body. He promised the complainant that the water body would be changed soon and the Airconditioner would also be set right. He further promised that in case the aforesaid defect is not cured, he would be supplied a new car. On 3.7.1998, the Service Engineer of O. P. No.2 replaced the water body which was received from Mumbai still the 'noise' of the engine did not cease. The complainant still made repeated efforts through telephone and letters alleging that since there is manufacturing defect in the vechicle in question and the defect of 'noise' in the engine has not been rectified, his vehicle be replaced with a new vehicle yet the O. Ps. neither replaced the vechile nor paid the cost of the vehicle realised from the complainant.