PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR AWADHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of both the above titled Revision Petitions as both arise out of a common order. The facts giving rise to these Revision Petitions are that Shri Santosh Kumar Awadhiya (Respondent in Revision Petition No. 80 and the Complainant in case No. 183 of 1991 before the District Forum, Gwalior) and Shri Daya Ram Arya (Respondent in Revision Petition No. 81 and the Complainant in case No. 239 of 1991 before the said District Forum) had purchased Premier Padmini Motor Cars manufactured by the present Petitioner Premier Automobiles Ltd. Bombay (forshort Manufacturers). These cars were purchased from Gwalior Trade Fair. The complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar was that he had deposited the full price of the car on 30th December, 1990 but the car was delivered on 13th January, 1991 and at the time of the delivery the car showed a run of 1096 Kms. as per its speedometer. The steering was not free on account of lack of lubrication. It was also contended that 40 litres of petrol had to be supplied free with the vehicle but the petrol supplied was not sufficient for taking the car outside the fair ground. The Complainant further contended that the first service was to have been effected between 500 to 800 kms. of run and thus he lost the first free service. It was also contended that the new engine oil and filter had to be provided in the car at the time of the delivery. On the above grounds he claimed Rs. 40,000/- as damages and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture. He also claimed Rs. 823/- towards the interest on the full value of the car from 30th December, 1990 to 13th January, 1991 as well as refund of Rs. 538/- towards the price of the petrol.

(2.) SHRI Daya Ram in his complaint alleged that he had paid the entire price of the car on 25th December, 1990 but the car was delivered on 2nd January, 1991. The speedometer showed run of 1096 kms. and the steering of the car was not working properly. He also complained that he had lost first free service which was to be got effected between 500 to 800 kms. of run. He also claimed that fresh engine oil and filter had to be provided at the time of delivery. He also complained that the battery in his car was defective because when he took the car to Chhatarpur from Gwalior he found starting problem due to battery. When he took the car for servicing he made the complaint about the battery problem. The battery was sent to Punjab Motors Gwalior where it was kept for one day and it was given back on the second day. Though the battery was working from that day but it gets discharged while running. Shri Daya Ram claimed Rs. 1644/- towards depreciation as the car had run 1096 kms. before delivery to him. He also claimed Rs. 538/- towards the cost of 40 litres petrol which according to him ought to have been given by the manufacturer at the time of the delivery. He also alleged that the car is to be treated as second hand and, therefore, claimed Rs. 40,000/- as damages as well as interest on the deposits for the car from 25th December, 1990 to 2nd January, 1991.

(3.) THE District Forum took evidence and by common order decided both the complaints and held that both the Complainants were entitled to fresh engine oil and oil filter. It was further ordered that Shri Daya Ram was entitled to the replacement of battery at the cost of the manufacturer. Each of the Complainants was also allowed cost of the complaint as well as the advocates fee. Other prayers made by them were disallowed.