K.S. CHUG vs Premier Automobiles Ltd.

THE complainant had purchased a brand new car from the respondent and paid consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/- on 5.1.1995 but after delivery it was found that the car was not a new car as it suffered from several defects and since there was a breach of the condition of merchantability, the complainant has through this complaint sought not only the replacement of the car with a new car free from all mechanical/technical defects but also compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/- for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to him. Apart from this, the complainant has also prayed for interest @ 24% of Rs. 2,83,000/-, the cost of the car and the expenses incurred on its rectification/repairing.

IN its reply O.P. raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint inasmuch as it was being used for commercial purposes in the name of Chairman of the Company M/s. Concord Air Handling Services Ltd. and not for personal use. The O.P. has also denied the allegations of having sold an old car. The O.P. has averred that the said car was delivered to the complainant after due inspection and satisfaction and in token thereof the complainant signed the note at the time of delivery of the car. However, the following defects were noticed in the car and according to the complainant these rendered the car unmerchantable: (1) Paint of the front bumper was defective. (2) Finish of the left side of the screen was defective. (3) There was a rattling noise. (4) Speedometer was not working. (5) Knob of the clock was missing. (6) The balance of the steering wheel was defective.

Vehicle in question was sent to the workshop of the O.P. frequently but the aforesaid defects could not be rectified. The job cards show that the vehicle was taken to the workshop on 2.2.1995, 3.2.1995, 8.2.1995, 8.3.1995, 10.5.1995, 6.7.1995, 27.9.1995 and 25.10.1995 including the period when first, second and third services were due. So much as the car remained at the garage for almost 5/6 days due to non-availability of the spare parts, defective speed meter could not be replaced. Steering wheel balance was also not rectified, hose pipe which was still under warranty period was not replaced and the complainant was also charged for replacing the same. Without removing the defects, car was handed over to the complainant in bad condition. The complainant has also alleged that he paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards repair of the car and could not use it properly for a period of more than 5/6 months. The aforesaid allegations have led to the instant complaint seeking compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

O.P. has denied the allegations. According to it the defects pointed out by the complainant were visible defects and to say that these could be noticed by the complainant at the time of delivery of the car is unacceptable as reasonable person will take delivery of the car with so many glaring defects. It is also averred that it is the complainant who committed breach of the promise of conditions of warranty as he has been driving the car negligently and met with an accident which is apparent from the job card dated 8.3.1995 and that when the car was brought for second free service it was noticed that some parts were broken and thus the complainant cannot shift the load of allegation of 10.5.1995, 6.7.1995, 27.9.1995 and 25.10.1995 including the period when first, second and third services were due. So much so the car remained at the garage for almost 5/6 days due to non-availability of the spare parts, defective speedometer could not be replaced. Steering wheel balance was also not rectified, hose pipe which was still under warranty period was not replaced and the complainant was also charged for replacing the same. Without removing the defects, car was handed over to the complainant in bad condition. The complainant has also alleged that he paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards repair of the car and could not use it properly for a period of more than 5/6 months. The aforesaid allegations have led to the instant complaint seeking compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. O.P. has denied the allegations. According to it the defects pointed out by the complainant were visible defects and to say that these could be noticed by the complainant at the time of delivery of the car is unacceptable as reasonable person will take delivery of the car with so many glaring defects. It is also averred that it is the complainant who committed breach of the promise of conditions of warranty as he has been driving the car negligently and met with an accident which is apparent from the job card dated 8.3.1995 and that when the car was brought for second free service it was noticed that some parts were broken and thus the complainant cannot shift the load of allegation of selling a new car as well as car having manufacturing defects or that the car was not motorable.

IN support of the allegations, the complainant has filed an affidavit by way of evidence and produced and proved the following documents. (1) Letter dated 6.1.1995 pointing out defects in the car referred above. (Ext. 1) (2) Letter dated 2.2.1995 pointing out defects in the car and the amount spent on the repairs of the car whereby the complainant sending the car to the O.P. or rectifying the defects. (Ex. 2) (3) Work slip dated 3.2.1995 showing the work of repairs done by the O.P. (Ex. 3) (4) Letter dated 3.5.1995 vide which the car was sent to workshop for third free service with following defects- (1) Both front seats loose and level not functioning properly. (2) Steering is very light. (3) Milo meter of daily mileage reading is out of order from the very beginning. This defect has been reported to you earlier also but this problem still exists. (4) Car needs touchup and painting. (5) Signals not functioning. (6) AC to be provided in the car. (7) Number plate.

Letter dated 22.5.1995 where the O.P. was informed that due to non-availability of spares of defective meter, the meter could not be replaced though it was replaceable being under the warranty period. Against this, the O.P. has relied upon the following documents in support of his case that the complainant had satisfied himself about the condition of the car at the time of its purchase and also signed satisfactory voucher. (i) Letter-After dated 5.1.1995 wherein it was nowhere noticed that the car did not appear to be a new car. (ii) Job cards dated 2.2.1995, 3.2.1995, 8.2.1995, 8.3.1995, 10.5.1995, 6.7.1995, 27.9.1995 and 25.10.1995 that the car in question was brought for regular first, second and third free service and taken back after thorough checkup to the satisfaction of the complainant. (iii) Vouchers dated 6.9.1995, 8.2.1995, 10.3.1995, 21.5.1995 and 6.9.1995 showing that the complainant has certified that jobs were carried out to his satisfaction and the car was satisfactorily repaired.

According to the Counsel for the O.P. the aforesaid documents clearly show that the car was delivered to the complainant in perfect working and satisfactory condition and the alleged defects pointed out by the complainant are imagination of the complainant as is demonstrated from job cards and the vouchers showing that the job was done to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and, therefore, the allegation that an old car was sold in place of new car and the car in question was having manufacturing defects are baseless and false. It is further contended by the Counsel that when the car was brought by the complainant, it was perfectly repaired to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. In refutation, Counsel for the complainant contended that the so-called satisfactory voucher dated 2.1.1995 and the voucher whereby the car was delivered on 5.1.1995 and other vouchers referred to above are vouchers issued as a matter of routine and this is supported from the circumstances of the subsequent job cards showing that the car was having persistent defects which could not be rectified in spite of its being taken to the garage time and again.

WE have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and have come to the conclusions that the car was in such a condition which could not be called satisfactory condition or perfectly motorable. Had it been so such large number of job cards produced by the complainant would not have been there. In every job card, there were several defects which could not be rectified as the car was taken to the garage every now and then.

WHENEVER a consumer purchases a vehicle, he is expected not to take the vehicle time and again to the garage. Every customer who purchases a new car minimum expectation is that the vehicle should be in perfect working order and trouble-free. If he is compelled to take a new car every other day to the garage, no other inference than that the vehicle was not in good and motorable condition if not an old one. Driving a new vehicle grudgingly and groaningly is a constant source of irritation and mental agony. Vehicle in question was having such defects that compelled the complainant to carry it to the garage very frequently as is demonstrated from the job cards as the defects could not have been removed and were persisting. It is a case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

Taking overall view of the matter and the fact that the car in question was purchased about 9 years back and is being used by the complainant though grudgingly, we deem that a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service besides Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. Complaint is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Complaint allowed.