ARUNBHAI DEVENDRARAY OZA vs Premier Automobiles Ltd.

THE complainant is a practicing advocate who had purchased a brand new car known as Premier Padmini Standard car manufactured by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2. THE Opposite Party No.3 is the authorised dealer. THE car was purchased at the then prevailing price of Rs. 1,15,810/- on July 30, 1990. THE complainant has alleged that on verifying the O.K. card and trusting the manufacturer he took the delivery of the car from the dealer. He noticed some defects after two days. According to him major defects could not be identified since the speed of the car was under control. However, after 15 days he could notice several defects and the same were communicated to the Opposite Party No.3 - the local dealer. THE authorised officer of the Opposite Party No.3 told him that it being a new car, certain problems would persist and about two months'' driving was required to really assess and identify the problem. He advised to bear with the difficulties for two months.

THE complainant has narrated the defects which he found after 15 days in para 4 which in short reads as under:- (a) here was starting trouble. All of a sudden the engine stopped working very often due to defect in carburettor. Petrol supply was not adequate. (b) THE bolts of steering wheel were not fitted properly. THE right hand side front doors were vibrating while in motion. THE plastic cover of the motor was loosely fitted. (c) THE windscreen wiper, water pipe was open which was required to be put into working. (d) THE seats were not fitted tightly with the body and hence were vibrating very often. (e) THE side lights were not working and the fan belt was loose. (f) While in motion the oil indicator showed red light. THEre was manufacturing defect in dicky and dicky covering. (g) THE inner lining of the car in all respects was not presentable. (h) THE colour finishing was not proper and had led to rusting at several places. It appears that he wrote a letter mentioning the above defects for the first time on 26.9.90 i.e. about two months from the date of purchase. THE defects shown are not in respect of engine but broadly speaking of starting trouble, steering wheel bolts were loose and vibration at several places. This above letter does not contain any major defect in respect of internal lining or colour finishing or rusting. This letter has been produced at Annexure-B at page 25. Within two days he again wrote a letter dated 28.9.90 which refers to his previous letter dated 24.7.90 which is unfortunately not on record. THE car appears to have been sent for service but according to the complainant the only service which was given was washing the car with water and no defects were removed.

It appears that M/s. Ahmedabad Motors have given a reply dated 29.10.90 to the complainant and requested him to make the car available for two days between Monday and Tuesday at Laldarwaja workshop for personal attention.

In pursuance of the said letter the complainant had sent his car and frustrated with the service of the Opposite Party No.3, wrote a letter dated 9.10.90 about the indifferent attitude shown by the opposite party No.3 to the customer. On the same day he also wrote a letter to Opposite Party No.l enquiring as to when the said car was delivered to the dealer and the date when the said amount was transferred to the Company. He further complained that the dealer has not given satisfactory service and is not giving report regarding manufacturing defect though demanded in writing. He kept the car for the whole day but returned the same without doing any service. He made a specific allegation that the Company and the dealers were negligent and indifferent towards the consumers.

THE PAL by its letter dated 22.11.90 has given a reply that they have sent the copy of his letter to Mr. Kiritbhai Shah, Partner of their dealers M/s. Ahmedabad Motors to give personal attention to do the needful. THE Company further stated that they were referring the matter to the Sr. Regional Manager (West) Mr. D. Walter at Ahmedabad to render necessary assistance and to attend to the complaint. On 6.12.90 the complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party No.l complaining that after the letter of the Company satisfactory services were not provided and the Sr. Manager and Mr. Anil Bhatt confirmed the manufacturing defects pointed out by him. He further stated that he had no trust in the dealer and has referred to his letter dated 9.11.90 and requested for the replacement of the car. PAL again wrote a letter dated December 29, 90 giving information to the complainant that the car was released from their Sales storage, Bombay. on 23.7.90 and had transferred to their Vapi Sales Depot on 24.7.90 and Ahmedabad Motors collected the said car on 26.7.90 from the depot and the same was delivered to the complainant on 30.7.90. THEy have also informed him that the complainant can avail of the services of any other dealer in Ahmedabad except Ahmedabad Motors, he may send his car to M/s. Auto Parts Sales and Service, Ahmedabad etc. THEreafter the correspondence continued and the complainant appears to have sent his car on 1.1.91 to W.IAA., Ahmedabad for report regarding the defects and the W.IAA. has given a report dated January 2,1991 which has been produced at Annexure-M, Page 43. THE report refers to luggage compartment alignment, minor repair at the place where it is supported by lid, tail light assemblies need refitting with proper adjustment, rear doors need adjust ment etc., front and rear seats are, however, too soft they maybe either padded up or replaced, the interior roof of the passenger compartment needs uniform fitting, front windscreen rubber needs replacement to make it water proof and found some minor rusting which needed suitable treatment and car polishing. THE most important thing written by the W.I.A.A. is as under:- "Based on our road test, we have found that the engine as well as the steering, suspension and transmission systems are in good condition." THEreafter the car was sent to M/s. Auto Parts Sales & Service. THEy kept the car for 8 days and delivered it on 19.2.91. But the complainant was not satisfied with the reparations and the treatment given to him and, therefore he has filed this complaint on 29.7.91. THE opposite parties have filed their version and have denied the claim of the complainant and have stated that they had given full attention and all the services possible. During the pendency of the complaint and at our persuation the manufacturer has agreed to replace the seats and when the car was sent the same were replaced. Therefore with regard to the seats the grievance need not remain. The letter of W.I.A.A. is very clear. On testing they have found that the engine as well as steering, suspension and transmission were in good condition. The only defect which they have pointed out appears to be very minor. If we compare the first letter which has been produced by the complainant dated 26.9.90 which reproduces the defects relating to steering, starting trouble, tuning etc. the same did not survive after reparation. The complaint regarding the seat etc. which was not with respect to the seat fitting with the body the Company has already replaced both the seats and, therefore, that would not survive. During the pendency of the complaint other minor repairs have been done and the car was, according to our opinion, properly repaired. The complainant is using the car since about 2 years and there is no suggestion that the car was not capable of being used though it had some minor defects. But the same now having been repaired, the question of replacement of the car does not survive.

NO doubt it is certain that if a person purchases a brand new car he expects that the same is in order and will not give him any trouble at-least for 4 to 5 years. Even if there are minor defects the same should be immediately attended to and removed. In the instant case the complainant had to enter into a long correspondence and had also to file a complaint to get full relief regarding the defects in the car. However, we do not agree with the complainant that the opposite parties have not attended to his complaint or that the car was so defective which requires a replacement. At the same time we are convinced that when the car was delivered to the complainant the same was not in perfect order and has given some troubles to the complainant. This has created tension, harassment and suffering. The complainant had to put the car for repairs every now and then and ultimately to get the seats changed and other defects removed, he had to file a complaint and had to undergo the trouble of litigation also. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the Company has attended the complainant at a very late stage and, therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation for pain, suffering, harassment and inconvenience which has caused to him by putting the car for repairs every now and then. Though there is no direct evidence regarding the damages which the complainant has suffered, to our opinion a direct evidence is not possible for inconvenience, pain and suffering and the adjudicating authority has to assess the same considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The complainant is a practicing advocate and has to use the car for going to Court and putting a new car to repairs will definitely create inconven-ience, trouble and hardship. Entering into written correspondence for getting a new car repaired must have caused much pain and suffering. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that a compensation of Rs. 12,000/- will be just and equitable having regard to the fact that the defects have been removed and the seats were replaced by new seats. Since the complainant has partly succeeded he will be entitled to the cost also. ORDER We direct that the Opposite Parties will jointly and severally pay Rs. 12,000/- by way of damages to the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant will also be entitled for interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of complaint (29.7.1991) till the payment is made. The opposite parties will pay the cost which we quantify at Rs. 1000/- and will bear their own cost. Complaint allowed with costs. _______________