VINOO BHAGAT Vs. GENERAL MOTORS I LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Vinoo Bhagat, complainant, booked an Opel Astra white colour car with M/s. Regent Automobiles Ltd. , opposite party No.2 (OP No.2) on 22.1.97. He gave a cheque for Rs.7,34,244/- dated 22.1.97. The Showroom Assistant statedly assured the complainant that the fuel consumption of the car was 10-12 kms. pre litre in city driving with Air Conditioner on and that the white coloured car would be delivered within 10 days. The car was not delivered within the period indicated. The complainant was persuaded to wait for longer period and ultimately informed that a red car was available. The complainant agreed to accept the red coloured car but when he went to complete the formalities to take the delivery, he was informed that a white coloured car had been arranged and he accordingly took the delivery of the same. The car was got registered as DL 3 CJ 2849. The Milometer showed that the car had run 129 kms. The complainant found some defects in the car and had a feeling that the car given to him was not brand new but a used car. The defects were set-right and the car delivered back to the complainant against a certificate dated 17.3.1997, Annexure-R/2 to the effect that the vehicle had been received by the complainant, "tested and found that the job had been done to his entire satisfaction". The complainant, however, added the words "subject to my claim for replacement". As the complainant was not happy and satisfied, the opposite parties as a gesture of goodwill, replaced the said car with a brand new white coloured car on 25.3.1997. It was registered as DL3 CJ 3770.

(2.) The complainant noticed various defects from the day the new was delivered at his residence on (25.3.1997) and he has given a datewise account of the defects noticed by him about which he had been informing the opposite parties by writing various letters and sending Fax Messages, produced as Annexures with the complaint and as evidence with the complainant's affidavit. Reference in greater detail to the Annexures would be made a little later. The grievance of the complainant is that not only the defects pointed out were not removed even though the car was taken to the workshop of opposite party-2 where the Engineers of both the Manufacturer (opposite party-1) and the Dealer (opposite party-2) are supposed to have worked but the car was kept in the workshop for long periods again and again. The complainant was forced to reach the conclusion that the car given to him suffered from defects which could not be removed and there was no point in accepting the representation of various functionaries of opposite parties that the defects had been removed. It is in these circumstances that the complainant declined the offer of opposite parties to deliver the car at the former's residence and the car has been admittedly lying in the workshop of opposite party-2 since 25.5.1997.

(3.) Another aspect of the case of the complainant is that the Opel Astra Car had been advertised by the opposite parties as a marvellous example of German Engineering. In fact, the car had an engine made by Holden Co. of Australia and this important fact was not disclosed. It was, therefore, a case of unfair trade practice. The complainant claimed refund of the price of the car besides the insurance premium paid by him alongwith 20% interest and Rs.2.00 lacs as punitive damages and a direction to opposite parties to cease publishing wrong and misleading advertisements.