SUNIL RAMCHANDRA DABHADE Vs. PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by complainant Dr. Sunil Ramchandra Dabhade, resident of Borivali, Mumbai. The complaint is against M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd., the car manufacturing Company of Mumbai and also against the Dealer M/s. Starline Automobiles Ltd., Kurla, Mumbai.

(2.) The complainant s case in the nutshell is that he purchased a Fiat car from O.P. No. 2 manufactured by O.P. No. 1 on 18.1.1996. When the car covered distance of 31 km., he paid full amount of consideration of Rs. 2,77,927. According to the complainant he noticed unusual vibrations in the said car. He noticed that from the date of taking the delivery the vibrations of the said car in starting condition increased considerably. Hence, he handed over the car to O.P. No. 2 on 28.1.1996 for repairs and servicing. O.P. No. 2 kept the car for 4 days and handed it over to the complainant on 31.1.1996. At that time speedo-meter showed that the car had driven 338 kms. Still complainant was not satisfied with the functioning of the car and he pointed out the major defects in the engine and jammed brakes and A.C. The complainant alleged that he reluctantly accepted the delivery of the said car on 31.1.1996. Again on 21.2.1996 complainant had taken car to O.P. No. 2 for fault repairing and servicing. The car was kept there for 3 days and speedo-meter showed that car had covered distance of 1337 Kms. But complainant was not satisfied with the work done by the O.P. No. 2 and the defects of the car were still not removed when he took delivery of the car. It is the case of the complainant that again he was constrained to hand over the car to O.P. No. 2 on 11.3.1996 for servicing the car. The car was handed over back to the complainant on 13.3.1996. The car had travelled the distance of 2042 kms. as per speedo-meter. The grievance of the complainant is that again the car was required to be kept in garage from 28.3.1996 to 6.4.1996. Still his car was not completely repaired and he sent letter to the Chairman of the O.P. No. 1/Company on 4.5.1996, who directed to give him car at the garage of O.P. No. 2. One Mr. Nemade, Engineer was appointed to inspect the car and to ascertain the defects. The car was in the garage from 9.5.1996 to 15.5.1996. At that time some defects were noticed and recorded, which he enlisted in para V of his complaint as under:

(3.) After delivery, on 15.6.1996 one Mr. Radhakrishnan, Engineer of O.P. No. 2 assured the complainant that the car was in good working condition and it was not necessary to have a joint trial. On this assurance, he took delivery of the car from O.P. No. 2 on 15.6.1996. Again, it is the case of the complainant that he was required to face lot of problems and defects persisted and ultimately not being satisfied with the service given, he approached Shroff and Company, Surveyor and Assessor, Horniman Circle, Mumbai and requested them to inspect his car bearing No. MH-04-X 1567. On 11.2.1998 the car was inspected by the Surveyor. At that time car had covered distance of 22619 kms. and the Surveyor found certain defects, which he mentioned in the Surveyor Report dated 11.2.1998, which is annexed at pages 106 to 108. The Surveyor reported that the owner of the car be given justice by replacing the subject car with a new one of his choice. Acting on this survey report ultimately he filed this consumer complaint with a prayer that O.Ps. should be directed to refund Rs. 2,77,927 i.e., price of the car with interest thereon from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation and take back the vehicle. He also claimed damages of Rs. 2 lacs and sum of Rs. 41,145 for repairs and maintenance of defective car. He filed this complaint on 8.7.1998 against both the O.Ps.