WHEELS WORLD Vs. TEJINDER SINGH GREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of both the above titled appeals as both arise out of the order dated October 6, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh.

(2.) THE facts are that the Complainant Shri Grewal (who is Respondent No. 1 in both the above Appeals), had purchased a Montana Diesel Car from M/s. Wheels World (appellant in Appeal No. 605/93) on 4th April, 1990 for a price of Rs. 1,23,500/-. M/s. Sipani Automobiles (who is the Appellant in Appeal No. 31/941) is the Manufacturer of the said brand of car, while Wheels World is the Distributor and Dealer of the said car at Ambala. Within two days of the delivery of the said car, the Complainant had to approach the Dealer for removal of vital manufacturing defects which started surfacing at once. The details thereof were filled in the job card for attention. But even after repairs, the vehicle had again to be taken to the Dealer on 20th April, 1990 for repair and replacement of the rear axle, silencer, driving seat and also the repair of motor oil leakage. Apparently because of the extensive repair needed the said car remained in the workshop of M/s. Wheels World from 20th April, 1990 to 11th May, 1990 when it was delivered back. However, these repairs again proved unsatisfactory because of inherent defects and the complainant, therefore, wrote a letter dated 4th June, 1990 to the Manufacturer pointing out those defects catalogued in para 4 of the complaint. The Manufacturer replied that the needful would be done to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant. However, that assurance proved to be only illusory and the unsatisfactory functioning of the car continued. Again on 3rd of January, 1991 the Complainant wrote to the Manufacturer for rectifying the defects. In response thereto the Manufacturer informed him that a special mechanical team would visit Ambala and requested the Complainant to produce the vehicle before them. However, on reaching there he learnt to his shock and disappointment that the said team had apparently cancelled the visit and the Complainant, therefore, returned back to Patiala where he resides. Another communication dated 2nd of February, 1991 was sent by the Complainant followed with a number of reminders etc. but without any adequate response either from the Dealer or from the Manufacturer. Inevitably on 3rd April, 1992 the Complainant insisted for the replacement of the engine and in response to the same, the Manufacturer asked him to send the engine of the car for repair or replacement vide letter dated 16th April, 1992. Consequently, the engine block was taken out and forwarded to the said party at Bangalore on payment of freight charges of Rs. 895/- vide letter dated 2nd July, 1992. The Complainant was surprised to receive a letter from the Manufacturer dated the 22nd of July, 1992 mentioning that the car engine had been replaced and they had noticed that it was now performing to the Complainant's satisfaction. It was, however, regretted that an exchange of the Montana car with Sipani car is not possible as per the policy of the Company. Inevitably the Complainant was shocked to note the contents of that letter because the engine of the car was still lying with the Manufacturer and it was only on 17th September, 1992 that they admitted the said fact.

(3.) THE Dealer, M/s. Whels World filed written statement pleading that they were merely Distributor and not the Manufacturer and in this manner they had nothing to do with this complaint and it is M/s. Sipani Automobiles, which maintain the warranty/obligations. Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate represented the Dealer.