MOHANARAO MARUTHIRAO CHARGE vs SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

THE learned Counsel for the Respondent and the Respondent are absent. THE Respondent has filed his statement of objections. THE learned Counsel" for the Complainant and the Complainant are present.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: THE Complainant purchased a Montana Diesel Car by making payment of a sum of Rs. 1,25,024/- to the Respondent. THE Complainant made payment of this amount to the Respondent on 3 occasions, i.e., an amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of booking in the month of April 1989; an amount of Rs. 1,06,650/- on 13-8-1990 and further sum of Rs. 8,374/- in the month of September, 1990, as per Annexures D and F. THE Complainant took delivery of this vehicle from the Respondent in the month of November 1990. THE Complainant purchased this vehicle in pursuance of an advertisement given by the Respondent in the English Daily Newspaper Deccan Herald dated 4-7-1989 and also publication made in some other newspapers and automobile journals to the effect that the engine was manufactured by V.S.T. Tillers and Tractors, Bangalore with joint collaboration of Mitsubishi, Japan and that the said car was tested and approved road-worthy by Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of Government of India, which will facilitate registration of vehicles with the Transport authorities. After the said purchase, the Complainant found that the car was not giving him satisfactory service and started giving all sorts of trouble, i.e.,. Engine oil got thickened, there was no fuel efficiency, the engine got overheated, it began to emit dense smoke and its body was rattling. The Complainant finally found that the car was not fitted with the engine manufactured by the VST Tillers and Tractors, Bangalore with joint collaboration of Mitsubishi, Japan, but the engine fitted to the vehicle was that of ''Jaya'' engine manufactured at Coimbatore.

The Complainant on the basis of these averments sought the refund of the price of the vehicle paid by him to the Respondent, i.e., Rs. 1,25,024/- and costs.

AS referred above, the Respondent has filed statement of objections. In para 7 of the statement of objections, the Respondent has admitted the fact that the car that was delivered to the Complainant was fitted with ''Jaya'' Engine and not with the engine manufactured by V.S.T. Tillers and Tractors, Bangalore, with joint collaboration of Mitsubishi, Japan. The para 7 of the statement of objections of the Respondent reads as under: "No doubt, the Respondent Company had an agreement with M/s. VST Tillers & Tractors for supply of engine to be fitted in the Montana diesel car, however, the agreement between the Respondent and M/s. VST Tillers and Tractors was terminated and the Respondent Company had to look out for a suitable alternative and after several tests found that Jaya diesel engine was suitable and the same was economical and more fuel efficient and therefore, the Respondent Company decided to use Jaya diesel engine in Montana diesel car."

ORDER The facts and the circumstances averred by the Complainant are substantiated by the averments made in the statement of objections by the Respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the Respondent did give an advertisement which was published in the Deccan Herald and other magazines slating that the engine manufactured by M/s. V.S.T. Tillers and Tractors, Bangalore, with joint Collaboration of Mitsubishi, Japan will be fitted to the Montana diesel car. It is also substantiated by the Complainant that the car that was supplied by the Respondent to the Complainant was not fitted with Mitsubishi engine as stated in the advertisement. The averments in the complaint show that the Complainant on seeing the advertisement in the said papers was induced to purchase the said car. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Respondent had adopted "Unfair Trade Practice" by supplying the car which was not fitted with Mitsubishi Engine but was fitted with ''Jaya" Engine manufactured in Coimbatore and in consequence of which the complainant suffered loss. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for refund of the cost price of the car. As the Complainant has so far used the car, in our opinion, he is not entitled to any interest on the said amount of cost price paid by him. In the result, therefore, the complaint is allowed and the Respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,024/- to the Complainant with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- within one month from this day. The Complainant shall deliver the car to the Respondent and execute the necessary documents in his favour at the time of receiving the amount from the Respondent. Appeal allowed.