Geeta Kampani vs SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a car of Montana make from respondent No. 3 at Lucknow for a total price of Rs. 1,08,800/ -, on 12.7.90. The car is manufactured by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd., -respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are the agents of respondent No. 1 at Lucknow and Delhi respectively. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of respondent No. 1.

THE warranty of the car was given for a period of six months or 8000 Kms. which was earlier. It is alleged that within a period of four months, when it had done hardly 3,900 Kms., its gear box started giving trouble and clutch release bearing started making undue noise. Sometime later the pressure plate also started giving trouble and that had to be got replaced. At the time of purchase the complainant was posted at Allahabad. Respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 1 that the car had been opened three times for gear -box work and clutch but it continued to have the following defects which be got rectified from the Delhi dealer, respondent No. 4 : ''1. Gear box complete clutch overhauling, 2. One set gasket, 3. One set standard ring required as it is giving smoke.'' Respondent No. 3 further mentioned in that letter that due to non -adjustment of the tappets by the factory, problems had been created for the customers.

IT is further pleaded that the car remained with respondent No. 4 for a period of approximately two months from 28.5.91 to 30.7.91, but they did not repair the car which was under warranty. However, the Regional Manager of respondent No. 1, at Delhi agreed to get it repaired. After the car had been repaired the axel of the car broke completely on 15.9.91. The car was got towed from a distance of about 20 Kms. to a mechanic at Gurgaon. It was got repaired from him by spending Rs. 4,000/ -. ft is alleged that the complainant had to spend thousands of rupees on taxi fare. Still the car is not in a working condition. It is consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to refund Rs. 1,08,800/ - with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization thereof and pay rupees two lacs as damages.

THE complaint has been contested by the respondents. They have inter -alia pleaded that the Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. They have denied other allegations of the complainant and stated that many other cars have been sold by them and they are working in perfect order. The complainant suffered on account of bad driving, defect in fuel, non -servicing of the car, bad/defective roads etc. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

IN the written statement it is stated by the respondents that the transaction between the parties was subject to Bangalore jurisdiction and consequently the Commission at Bangalore had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The. respondent in the written statement, however, admitted that this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but pleaded that in view of the agreement between the parties the jurisdiction of this Commission stands excluded. We have duly considered the argument. No part of the cause of action arose at Bangalore. Same question has been recently decided by us in Paras Mal v. M/s. Roshan Freight Carriers, II (1992) CPJ 830. It was held there in similar circumstances, that the Redressal Agencies of the place, where the head office of a Company was situated had no exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the circumstances we hold that this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

THE next question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to the recovery of price, damages etc. and if so, how much amount it is entitled to recover. We recently decided a complaint against the respondents entitled Vikram Singh v. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. (Complaint No. C -96/91 decided on 13.4.93) and held therein, that the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price plus cost of the repairs plus interest and damages for mental pain and suffering. In those cases we have awarded interest @ 12%p.a. to the complainants. In the present case also we allow the same rate of interest to her. We further award Rs. 15,000/ - as damages for mental torture. The complainant is thus entitled to the following amounts : - 1. Price of the car Rs. 1,08,800.00 2. Cost of repairs Rs. 11,400.00 3. Interest @ 12% on Rs. 1,08,800/ - from 12.7.90 to 28.1.92 Rs. 20,194.00 4. Damages Rs. 15,000.00 Total Rs. 1,55,394.00 or Say Rs. 1,55,400/ -

For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,55,400.00 to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., 29.1.92 till the date of payment. Costs Rs. 2,500/ -. The respondent is further directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of the order, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The chair shall be returned by the complainant to the respondent, after the payment of the decrial amount is made to them. Complaint allowed with costs.