Hassan Ali Khan vs B.SESHAGIRI RAO AND SONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

THE complainant seeks for replacement of the car by a brand new one and claims a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation towards the loss of business sustained by him together with a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and strain suffered by him.

THE facts that emerge on a reading of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Estate AC car from the first opposite party on 30.1.1995. On 31.1.1995 the car started giving trouble and it stopped on the way after covering a distance of 1 km. from his house. In fact he had an important meeting with the members of Nizam''s family to finalise the deal regarding investment of their money in the complainant''s Company. However, a mechanic was brought at about 5.30 p.m., who examined the car and said that the fault was in solenoid valve switch but repaired it temporarily and started the car. That complainant was advised to send the car to the workshop on 1.2.1995. THE faulty solenoid switch was replaced on 1.2.1995 and the car as alright on 2.2.1995. Again the car started giving trouble on 3.2.1995, therefore, the complainant could not attend important meeting with the family members of Nizam both on 1.2.1995 and 3.2.1995 and as a result of which he sustained a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs since the family members of Nizam decided not to invest their money in the complainant''s business. Apart from that the complainant noticed that at the left hand side rear portion of the car there was a dent and colour mismatch. He pointed out 14 defects in the car as such he filed this complaint since the car was defective one and had obviously shortcomings in the quality potency and in the standard. In the counter filed by the opposite parties there is no dispute about the purchase of the vehicle. It is stated that the complainant is only a hirer and, therefore, he has no locus standi to file this complaint, inasmuch as the Finance Company is the de jure owner of the car. It is also admitted that the vehicle stopped on account of defect in the solenoid switch and although there was no warranty for electrical items still as a gesture of goodwill the first opposite party replaced the solenoid switch free of cost. The reasons for failure of the said switch was rash driving of the vehicle and accelerating the engine unnecessarily which resulted in damage to the solenoid switch. Even after the replacement of the said switch the complainant could not handle the vehicle in terms of the manual instruction and brought back the vehicle for certain minor repairs on 4.2.1995. The complainant gave a list of 14 minor defects on 4.2.1995, while asking for replacement of the vehicle. There is no manufacturing defect in the car. Automated vehicle with power assisted steering wheel has to be driven carefully in terms of the manual of instructions at least for a period of first three months or 2000 kms. whichever is earlier. The complainant failed to adhere to the said guidelines. The vehicle was brought on 3.2.1995 for minor repairs and the same was made ready on 4.2.1995 itself but the complainant did not come to the garage to collect the same. The complainant is not entitled to claim replacement. He is also not entitled for any compensation for loss of business or for mental agony.

The complainant examined two witnesses including himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-28 while the opposite parties examined the Works Manager of the first opposite party as R.W. 1 and Senior Service Engineer of Telco and in-charge of entire Passenger Car Section Service in the State of Andhra Pradesh as R.W. 2 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-6.

THE points for consideration are : Whether there is any mechanical defect in the vehicle Tata 483 DL 41 engine Tata Estate Car purchased by the complainant, and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to any damages ?

THE purchase of Tata Estate Car on 3.2.1995 in Invoice No. 00085 from the first opposite party by the complainant is admitted. However, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 89,934/- as down payment for the new car on 30.1.1995. Invoice was prepared on 3.2.1995 for the total cost of the price of the vehicle for Rs. 4,45,171/-. This invoice was also issued on 3.2.1995. Bill for transportation charges was also dated 3.2.1995 and transport charges of Rs. 1,500/- was paid on 3.2.1995 under Ex. A-7. From these documents it is clear that the car was actually purchased on 3.2.1995 only. But as stated in the counter it was handed over for trial run to the complainant on 31.1.1995 itself. If the vehicle really developed such serious problem on 31.1.1995 or 1.2.1995 the complainant could not have paid the sale consideration on 3.2.1995 and obtain the delivery of the vehicle. Be that as it may. It is admitted that on 31.1.1995 the car stopped on the road after travelling for some time. The opposite party sent the mechanic who examined the vehicle and found that the solenoid switch was damaged and accordingly the same was replaced free of cost although there is no warranty for the electrical items. It is the contention of the complainant that on 3.2.1995 again there was break-down of the vehicle. He gave a list of 14 items with a covering letter under Ex. A-8 on 14.2.1995 while requesting for a new car. Ex. A-9 is the said list. According to the opposite parties these are the minor defects. Though Ex. A-8 is dated 4.2.1995 it was actually received by the opposite parties on 6.2.1995. Therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant that in view of these minor defects the complainant is entitled to replacement of the vehicle. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that since the complainant has lost business of Rs. 10 lakhs he is entitled for reimbursement of the same. It is preposterous to contend that the vehicle would have earned a profit of Rs. 10 lakhs and the breakdown of the vehicle has resulted in the said loss. The complainant is doing business and has number of assistants and employees working in the office. Apart from that he stated that on 31.1.1995 his family members including his daughter and grand children were travelling in the car when it broke down. Though the meeting with the Nizam''s family members was fixed on 3.2.1995 the car did not start in the morning. It is understandable why the complainant could not engage an alternative conveyance to attend the meeting. His contention is that it is the new car that would earn business for which we cannot affix our seal of approval. The business deal depends upon several factors, new costly car may be used to show-off but to say that it is the sole criteria which would earn business cannot be swallowed. Hence this contention in our view has no substance and accordingly the claim for Rs. 10 lakhs towards damages cannot be acceded.

THE contention of the learned Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant had incurred the expenditure shown under Exs. A-27 and A-28 bills. Ex. A-27 is the bill for battery. Under Ex. A-28 spare parts, oil and lubricants as well as labour charges are shown. Ex. A-28 is dated 2.9.1996 which is after one and half years of the purchase of the vehicle. Further the receipt for payment of Rs. 20,000/- dated 22.8.1996 was filed. But the vehicle number was shown as AP 9J 7387 whereas the vehicle purchased by the complainant is AP 11C 1753. THErefore, this expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- or other expenditure incurred on 22.8.1996 does not relate to the vehicle in question.

FOR all these reasons we are of the opinion that there is no proof that the complainant incurred any expenditure immediately after the purchase of the vehicle or before free services were utilised. In the absence of acceptable proof we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Both parties have let in oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. In our view much does not depend upon oral evidence. As already stated documentary evidence in this case does not establish that there was any mechanical defect in the vehicle. The complainant has not taken steps to get the vehicle examined by a qualified Automobile Engineer to find out whether there is any mechanical defect in the vehicle. He should have moved the Commission for the said purpose. This was not done for obvious reasons. The complainant was using the vehicle all these days. For all these reasons we cannot hold that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

The complaint, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances without costs. Complaint dismissed.