HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. P VASUDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.99 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby appellant/opposite party No. 1 and respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 were directed to supply a new Contessa car with AC in place of old one within a period of three months failing which amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of order, was to be refunded by them to respondent No.1/complainant.

(2.) COMPLAINT was filed by respondent No. 1, inter-alia, alleging that he purchased a Contessa car with AC from respondent No.2, authorized dealer of the appellant on 8.12.97 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. Immediately after purchase the car started giving trouble. On 21.1.98 it was found that the battery of car was defective and was replaced by respondent No. 2. During the month of April, 1998 when the AC was put to use the engine of car got over-heated. On this defect being brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 2 repaired it. It was alleged that on way to Nahan the engine again got over-heated. This defect was brought to the notice of respondent No.2 by writing the letter dated 25.5.98 which was followed by reminder dated 11.6.98. Still the defect was not removed. It was stated that respondent No. 1 got the car checked up from Sharma Auto Workshop who found that the paint of the car was not original. Car sold to respondent No. 1 was accidental car. Alleging unfair trade practice on the part of respondent No. 2 and appellant, after serving legal notice dated 20.7.98, complaint was filed seeking refund of the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest of Rs.72,000/-, compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-, totaling Rs.5,82,000/-.

(3.) IN its written version the appellant additionally pleaded that though the battery was not covered under the warranty given still the same was replaced. Defect in battery cannot be construed as manufacturing defect in the car. Alleged over-heating in the engine was caused due to unauthorized fitment of AC in the car by respondent No. 1 and there was breach of clause 4 (f) of the warranty conditions on her part. We heard Ms. Astha Tyagi for appellant and K.P.S. Rao for respondent No. 1.