HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD vs RAJENDRA KUMAR GANESHBHAI PRAJAPATI

-OPPOSITE Party Nos. 2 and 3 in original complaint No. 114 of 190 on the file of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad are the appellants in First Appeal No. 11 of 1992. The first appellant M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., Calcutta is the manufacturer of Ambassador motor cars and appellant No. 2 is the Branch Office of the first appellant company at Ahmedabad. The appellant in First Appeal No. 12 of 1992 is the dealer for Ambassador car sat Ahmedabad.

ON August 11, 1989, the complainant purchased from the appellants a diesel Ambassador carand delivery of it on August 14, 1989. The grievance put forward by the complainant before the State Commission was that after the car had run only 15 kms. It was noticed that there was leakage of oil, that the car had poor pick up and could not accelerate for about 15 kms. per hour, that there was some sort of knocking from engine and the performance of the vehicle was very sluggish while ascending slopes. The vehicle was sent by the complainant to the dealer for repairs on three or four different occasions and major repairs were carried out after opening the engine. Due to the vehicle having been periodically sent for repairs to the workshop of the dealer, the complainant was deprived of its use for many days thereby putting him to great inconvenience and loss. The complainant accordingly sought to recover from the opposite parties a total compensation of Rs. 1,08,294.46 with interest which included the claim for reimbursement of Rs. 3,147/- alleged to have been the excess price charged from him by the dealer. After a detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in the case, the State Commission found that the vehicle supplied to the complainant had several defects which had to be set right by repairs carried out from time to time and for that purpose the car had remained in the garage for considerable time. The State Commission has assessed the loss suffered by the complainant on this account at Rs. 5,000/-. In addition the State Commission was of opinion that since the car was substantially defective when it was delivered to the complainant as a new vehicle its resale value must be lower than what it would be in the case of a new vehicle supplied in good condition and that for the monetary loss suffered by the complainant on this account, the complainant should be awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-representing 10 percent of the value of the car.

Although various contentions have been advanced before us on the side of the appellants, we consider that the only point having merit is that the award of 10 percent of the value of the car on the ground of its having been originally defective was not justified. It has been found that all the defects which originally existed in the vehicle have been fully set right by repairs carried out at the cost of the appellants. In such circumstances, we consider that there was no justification for awarding a sum representing 10 percent of the value of the car as compensation to the complainant particularly when there is absolutely no evidence to show that, as a matter of fact, the resale value of the car has suffered on account of the fact of its having been originally defective.

WE are however, of opinion that the sum of Rs. 5,000/- allowed to the complainant by way of compensation for the inconvenience caused to him due to his having deprived of the use of the car for many days during which it had to be kept in garage for repairs from time to time was wholly inadequate. The evidence discloses that the car was in the garage for repairs during a total period of 64 days in three different spells. The complainant is engaged in the business of construction work in the city of Ahmedabad and he is the Managing partner of two firms namely, M/s. Swastik Builders and M/s. Basas Constructions. Having regard to a nature of the business activity carried on by the complainant it is clear that he would have been put considerable inconvenience, hardship and monetary expenditure on account of his having been deprived of the use of the car for the said period of 64 days. WE consider that it would be reasonable to award him a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the inconvenience and monetary loss caused to him on account of the defective nature of the car necessitating its being kept in the garage for a period of 64 days for carrying out repairs. In the light of what is stated above, we modify the order of the State Commission by holding that the complainant shall be entitled to recover from the appellants a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- only from the appellants herein. This amount will carry interest at 18% from the date of complaint viz. 12.1.90 till date of actual payment, In all other respects the order of the State Commission will stand confirmed. The appeals are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. ORDER 1.In this case from the facts recorded in the order of the State Commission, it is evident that the car supplied was grossly defective. The new car was delivered on 14th August, 1989. It developed numerous troubles after running over a short distance : Oil leaking, poor acceleration, suspensors not working etc. Consequently the car had to be sent to the garage for repairs on 19th August, 1989 and it remained in the garage till 7th September, 1989 i.e. 17 days. In these repairs the engine was opened and major repairs carried out.

2.Again the car was sent for repairs on the 25th August, 1989 and remained in the garage till the 16th September, 1989 i.e. for a period of 20 days. During these repairs, engine valves, piston rings and chain were replaced, the bearing was found damaged and engine was overhauled.

Again the car was sent for repairs on 27th January, 1990 and remained in the garage till the 16th February, 1990 i.e. for a period of 20 days.

Again the car was sent for repairs on 16th March, 1990 and remained in the garage till the 23rd March, 1990 i.e. it remained in the garage for 8 days. According to the appeal memo, the car was under repairs again from 28.3.1990 to 11.5.1990 i.e. for 45 days. The precise nature of repairs carried out during the last three repairs are not stated in the order of the State Commission. However, it is evident that a new car developed major defects within 5 days of the delivery and had undergone prolonged repairs for five times, for a total period of 110 days in 9 months. The repairs carried out during the first and second repairs indicate that the repairs were of a major nature and the engine of the car, which is the heart of the car, was defective requiring overhauling. It would be justified to infer from the frequency of repairs, the nature of the repairs and the time taken for repairs that the car had major defects ab initio. In fact in the light of the Commission''s order in Abhaya Kumar Panda v. M/s. BajajAuto Ltd., I (1992) CPJ 88 (NC)=1992 (1) CPR 246 =, it would not have been inappropriate for the State Commission to have considered the grant of relief by way of replacement of the car by a new car. As, however, the respondent complainant has not appealed against the order of the State Commission, I agree to the order prepared by the President.

Appeal disposed of.