P VASUDEVA Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. P. Vasudeva purchased a Contessa Classic Delux car for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on 8.12.1997 from M/s. Premier Motor Garage, respondent No.2. Soon after the delivery of the car it started giving trouble. On 21.1.1998, it was found that the battery of the car was defective. The Territory Manager Service, Hindustan Motors Ltd. , Chandigarh inspected the battery and replaced it as it was under the warranty period but the car continued giving trouble. In the month of April, 1998 its AC was put to use and its engine got overheated and the car had to be started after the engine cooled down. This defect was brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 who tried to rectify the defect whenever it was sent for repairs, but even after the repairs this defect continued and the engine used to get overheated whenever the AC was switched on. The complainant got suspecious as to why a car purchased only a few months back is giving so much of trouble. Ultimately the complainant got it checked from the Sharma Auto, Chandigarh. It was found that the paint of the car was not original and genuine. The complainant again approached respondent No.2 and filed a report in writing as well as conveyed verbally also on 25th May, 1998 followed by a reminder dated 11.6.1998 with a request to take immediate steps to get the defects rectified as pointed out by the complainant but the respondent No.2 failed to satisfy the complainant (Annexures C-3 and C-4 ). The complainant has averred that the bearing of the engine and the paint not being original/genuine, battery being defective and engine getting overheated on switching on the AC, the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 have passed on a second hand vehicle or an accidented vehicle to the complainant which was unfair on the part of the respondent. Thus the complainant averred it an unfair trade practice. The complainant served a legal notice (Annexure-5) on 20th July, 1998 and called upon the opposite parties to replace the car with another one or refund the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and pay interest @ 18% from 9.12.1997 within 15 days but inspite of it, the respondent failed to do so. The complainant has claimed following reliefs : (i)Refund of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- being the price of the car. (ii)Interest @ 24% p. a. w. e. f.9.12.1997. Rs.72,000/- (iii)Compensation for mental agony and harassment. Rs.50,000/- (iv)Costs of litigation. Rs.10,000/-Rs.5,82,000/-

(2.) In its reply the respondent No.2, i. e. M/s. Premier Motor Garage has averred that the complainant purchased a non-AC car for Rs.4,16,706/- including accessories (Annexure C-1 ). The complainant did approach the respondent No.2 to fit an AC and thus had paid total amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for the AC car. The plea of respondent is that whenever an AC of a car is put in use the temperature of the engine tends to go up because of the load being taken up by the engine. However, terming the same as the engine getting overheated is totally wrong. The respondent No.2 has not repudiated the complainant's approaching the answering respondent that the AC is in genuine and defective battery. It was brought to the notice of the complainant that in the originally AC fitted car of the Hindustan Motors, the radiator panel in the bottom is cut out to ensure smooth and free air flow to the radiator for better and effective cooling and this was done by the respondent No.2 after receiving the complaint. The respondent No.2 has further averred that Sharma Auto is basically dealing in accidental vehicles and undertakes the job of denting, painting, reshaping, hydraulic servicing and overhauling of vehicles. It also challenged the authenticity of the report of Sharma Auto alleging that such type of reports can be secured by any one and that the car must have met with an accident. The complainant went to the workshop for denting and painting and has filed a frivolous complaint to get the car replaced and procured a report in his favour as complainant's husband is a senior officer of the Haryana Police.

(3.) The complainant has averred that she received a letter from respondent No.2 on 25.5.1998 in which the Company promised that details of defects of her car have been sent to some expert and he will come within 3-4 days. However, even after a lapse of 16-17 days no expert from the respondent Company arrived for checking and rectifying the defects of her car. It is a serious deficiency in services on the part of the respondent No.1. A letter from M/s. Nath Motors dated 28th April, 1999 (Annexure C-7) confirms that the said vehicle has not with any accident.