RAMAKRISHNA AUTO SERVICE Vs. BONDA VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C. D.125/95 District Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada with the financial assistance of State Bank of India purchased a diesel auto for a sum of Rs.58,000/- from the first opposite party on 1.9.1994. But within one month the auto used to give loud noise and broke down and the clutch plates were not working. The complainant informed about the mechanical defect to the opposite party No.1 who deputed a mechanic and got it repaired by fixing a new clutch plate. The auto worked for a month and thereafter on 7.11.1994 the engine failed. The first opposite party again sent a mechanic who removed the engine and sent it to Vijayawada without informing the complainant about the defect in the engine or the repairs required. After several phone calls the first opposite party sent the engine on 11.12.1994 with a bill for Rs.2,592.16 Ps. Even thereafter it was not working properly and was giving trouble due to severe mechanical defects and breakdowns twice.

(2.) Alleging that there is a manufacturing and mechanical defects that cannot be rectified by mere repairs, the above complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by the complainant with 18% interest or to replace the auto with a new one and pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5.000/- towards loss of earning and for costs.

(3.) The second opposite party filed a counter, which was adopted by the first opposite party. According to the opposite parties there was no inducement of any kind. to purchase the vehicle and the first opposite party sent a mechanic to Jaggampet on 10.11.1994 and the mechanic removed the engine and sent the engine through RTC driver, to Secunderabad. After the engine was attended at Secunderabad, it was fitted to the vehicle. But although the auto was in good condition, the complainant refused to give a receipt.