KISHORE AUTOMOBILE (P) LTD. vs PREMA CHANDRA BENIA

THIS is an appeal against the direction of the District Forum, Rayagada to the present appellant, authorised dealer of Hindustan Motors Ltd. to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the costs of the vehicle i.e., Rs. 3,90,000/-.

COMPLAINANT purchased one HM RTV vehicle on 29.12.2000 from the authorised dealer the appellant, the manufacturer being the Hindustan Motors Ltd. Shortly after taking delivery he found the vehicle to have manufacturing defects i.e., defect in gear box, clutch etc. So much so during the third free servicing the gear pin of the gear box was damaged. The vehicle was handed over to the present appellant on 29.5.2001 at Berhampur for repair. The same was scheduled to be delivered back on 1.6.2001 after repairing. This was within the warranty period. The present appellant did not give delivery of the vehicle till the date of filing of the case. The appellant was O.P. No. 2 in the District Forum though received notice did not appear, nor any written version was filed. The manufacturer appeared and pleaded that the vehicle had no manufacturing defects, it was a steady and road-worthy vehicle, that it had no knowledge or information about what transpired between the complainant and the present appellant-dealer. The case was not maintainable before the District Forum, on account of absence of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction and that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose etc.

The District Forum after considering the material on record held that the appellant as the authorised dealer and authorized service-centre of the Hindustan Motors Ltd. committed deficiency in service in not delivering back the vehicle after repair and, therefore, was liable to pay the amount so awarded.

HEARD Miss S. Ratho the learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.P. Dutta the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. S.B. Misra the learned Counsel for the Hindustan Motors Ltd. While it is the case of the complainant that after the vehicle was given for repair on 29.5.2001 the same was not delivered back to him at all and no repair had been undertaken, it is the case of the present appellant as is clear from its letters dated 16.8.2001 and 17.10.2001 filed before this Appellate Forum, that the complainant was not taking delivery of the vehicle after proper repair. The District Forum has accepted the case of the complainant that there was delay on the part of the present appellant in not delivering the vehicle in time after repair. The affidavit of the complainant dated 12.12.2001 proves that the vehicle remained with the present appellant for repair from 29.5.2001 till that date i.e., 12.12.2001 for want of repair of the vehicle due to non-availability of the proper spare parts, which also indicates that the vehicle was not road-worthy vehicle. From the letter of the present appellant addressed to the Hindustan Motors Ltd., copy of which is filed before this Appellate Court it is apparently clear that the spare parts of the vehicle was not available readily. The present appellant mentioned to the Hindustan Motors Ltd. by letter dated 26.6.2001 about the defects of the gear box and the appellant had undertaken the job and by then had placed orders for certain parts, and admittedly those parts were not available with the appellant. It is further mentioned that out of 5 number of parts received from Calcutta another 5 number of parts were procured from M/s. Kalinga Automobile, Bhubaneswar. If further mentions that neither the rest parts were available in the local market nor could be arranged from the RTV parts so far. This reply proves that the vehicle was a vehicle which was marketed with no appreciable prospect of sale because of its lack of dependability like other vehicles of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Be that as it may, records do prove that the present appellant could not deliver back the vehicle after repair. On going through the impugned order and the materials on record we confirm the finding of the District Forum. The present appellant is deficient in not rendering the service in repairing the vehicle in question. However so far the ordering portion is concerned there is some amount of confusion.

NO doubt the complainant had purchased the vehicle with a Bank finance and he has filed the demand letter from the side of the Bank for repayment of the loan to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. But the relief granted is some how peculiar. Once there is a finding of deficiency of service the complainant is entitled to compensation. In the complaint petition he mentions to have lost profit of Rs. 20,000/-. There is no written version of the O.Ps. to this. We accept the uncontroverted statement of the complainant and his affidavit that he is entitled to Rs. 20,000/- towards the loss of profit. Besides we also assess Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental stress and agony as has been awarded by the District Forum. The District Forum order is modified accordingly. The O.Ps. are liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- on the whole. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal. The order be complied within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.