HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR GANESHBHAI PRAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 in original complaint No. 114 of 190 on the file of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad are the appellants in First Appeal No. 11 of 1992. The first appellant M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta is the manufacturer of Ambassador motor cars and appellant No. 2 is the Branch Office of the first appellant company at Ahmedabad. The appellant in First Appeal No. 12 of 1992 is the dealer for Ambassador car sat Ahmedabad.

(2.) On August 11, 1989, the complainant purchased from the appellants a diesel Ambassador carand delivery of it on August 14, 1989. The grievance put forward by the complainant before the State Commission was that after the car had run only 15 kms. It was noticed that there was leakage of oil, that the car had poor pick up and could not accelerate for about 15 kms. per hour, that there was some sort of knocking from engine and the performance of the vehicle was very sluggish while ascending slopes. The vehicle was sent by the complainant to the dealer for repairs on three or four different occasions and major repairs were carried out after opening the engine. Due to the vehicle having been periodically sent for repairs to the workshop of the dealer, the complainant was deprived of its use for many days thereby putting him to great inconvenience and loss. The complainant accordingly sought to recover from the opposite parties a total compensation of Rs. 1,08,294.46 with interest which included the claim for reimbursement of Rs. 3,147/- alleged to have been the excess price charged from him by the dealer.

(3.) After a detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in the case, the State Commission found that the vehicle supplied to the complainant had several defects which had to be set right by repairs carried out from time to time and for that purpose the car had remained in the garage for considerable time. The State Commission has assessed the loss suffered by the complainant on this account at Rs. 5,000/-. In addition the State Commission was of opinion that since the car was substantially defective when it was delivered to the complainant as a new vehicle its resale value must be lower than what it would be in the case of a new vehicle supplied in good condition and that for the monetary loss suffered by the complainant on this account, the complainant should be awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-representing 10 percent of the value of the car.