VIKRAM MAHURKAR Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order disposes of the compensation application filed by Shri Vikram Mahurkar under Sec.12b of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act), seeking compensation from the respondent-Hindustan Motors Ltd. , Calcutta on the ground that the latter indulged in unfair trade practices.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as contained in the compensation application may be summarized. The applicant had purchased an Ambassador (Nova) car on 22nd November, 1990 from the respondent through its authorised agent Western India Motor Company, Baroda. The car was purchased by the applicant after seeing the advertisement of the respondent that Ambassador (Nova) had the quality of smooth ride suspension. Immediately after purchasing the car on 27th December, 1990 the applicant wrote to the respondent pointing out major defects in the car mainly relating to "noise in the suspension and poor paint finish". The car was repaired 4 times with no positive results and repainted twice. It is the case of the applicant that a car painted twice in a local garage cannot match the standard of facilities existing in the manufacturer's paint shop. The applicant had been asking for replacement of the car which was not agreed to by the respondent and has, therefore, claimed compensation which includes refund of the total cost of the car of Rs.1,58,400/-.

(3.) The respondent filed a reply to the compensation application in which it has taken the preliminary objection that no enquiry relating to indulgence in unfair trade practice under Sec.36b of the Act has been initiated and the compensation application is not maintainable. It has also been pointed out that whenever the applicant sent the car or his authorised representative for repairs the same had been duly attended to and the repairs were carried out. The car was last attended to by its dealers Cama Motors Ltd. , Ahmedabad in June, 1991 and the car was handed over to the authorised representative of the applicant on his satisfaction. The respondent has also taken the stand that the warranty policy of the respondent did not cover replacement of the car and the terms of warranty was accepted by the applicant. According to the respondent allegations of a few minor defects would not constitute unfair trade practice within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Act. After the pleadings were over, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the compensation application is not maintainable in law for the reasons set out with the reply as preliminary objection (2) Whether the respondent has been indulging in restrictive trade practices as alleged (3) If the answer to the foregoing issue is in the affirmative, whether the alleged restrictive trade practices are prejudicial to public interest