PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LTD. vs SANTOSH KUMAR AWADHIYA

THIS order will dispose of both the above titled Revision Petitions as both arise out of a common order. The facts giving rise to these Revision Petitions are that Shri Santosh Kumar Awadhiya (Respondent in Revision Petition No. 80 and the Complainant in case No. 183 of 1991 before the District Forum, Gwalior) and Shri Daya Ram Arya (Respondent in Revision Petition No. 81 and the Complainant in case No. 239 of 1991 before the said District Forum) had purchased Premier Padmini Motor Cars manufactured by the present Petitioner Premier Automobiles Ltd. Bombay (forshort Manufacturers). These cars were purchased from Gwalior Trade Fair. The complaint of Shri Santosh Kumar was that he had deposited the full price of the car on 30th December, 1990 but the car was delivered on 13th January, 1991 and at the time of the delivery the car showed a run of 1096 Kms. as per its speedometer. The steering was not free on account of lack of lubrication. It was also contended that 40 litres of petrol had to be supplied free with the vehicle but the petrol supplied was not sufficient for taking the car outside the fair ground. The Complainant further contended that the first service was to have been effected between 500 to 800 kms. of run and thus he lost the first free service. It was also contended that the new engine oil and filter had to be provided in the car at the time of the delivery. On the above grounds he claimed Rs. 40,000/- as damages and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental torture. He also claimed Rs. 823/- towards the interest on the full value of the car from 30th December, 1990 to 13th January, 1991 as well as refund of Rs. 538/- towards the price of the petrol.

SHRI Daya Ram in his complaint alleged that he had paid the entire price of the car on 25th December, 1990 but the car was delivered on 2nd January, 1991. The speedometer showed run of 1096 kms. and the steering of the car was not working properly. He also complained that he had lost first free service which was to be got effected between 500 to 800 kms. of run. He also claimed that fresh engine oil and filter had to be provided at the time of delivery. He also complained that the battery in his car was defective because when he took the car to Chhatarpur from Gwalior he found starting problem due to battery. When he took the car for servicing he made the complaint about the battery problem. The battery was sent to Punjab Motors Gwalior where it was kept for one day and it was given back on the second day. Though the battery was working from that day but it gets discharged while running. Shri Daya Ram claimed Rs. 1644/- towards depreciation as the car had run 1096 kms. before delivery to him. He also claimed Rs. 538/- towards the cost of 40 litres petrol which according to him ought to have been given by the manufacturer at the time of the delivery. He also alleged that the car is to be treated as second hand and, therefore, claimed Rs. 40,000/- as damages as well as interest on the deposits for the car from 25th December, 1990 to 2nd January, 1991. Both the complaints were contested by Premier Automobiles Ltd. They contended that there was no deficiency in service or defect in the goods supplied by them. The speedometer readings were taken in the presence of the complainants while delivering the vehicles and no fraud was practised upon them. The distance showed by the meter was the distance between the factory at Bombay and the Gwalior Trade Fair. Other allegations were also denied and the liability was not admitted on any count.

THE District Forum took evidence and by common order decided both the complaints and held that both the Complainants were entitled to fresh engine oil and oil filter. It was further ordered that Shri Daya Ram was entitled to the replacement of battery at the cost of the manufacturer. Each of the Complainants was also allowed cost of the complaint as well as the advocates fee. Other prayers made by them were disallowed.

FEELING aggrieved of that order Manufacturers filed separate appeals before the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal. Appeal No. 129 of 1992 was directed against the order passed in the complaint of Shri Daya Ram while Appeal No. 130 of 1992 was dirfected against the order passed in the complaint case of Shri Santosh Kumar Awadhiya. The complainants had also filed separate appeals. By a common order passed in appeal No. 129 of 1992 the State Commission disposed of all the four appeals. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and held that the Complainants were entitled only to a sum equivalent to 70% of the prices of engine oil and oil filter prevalent at the time of the delivery of the vehicles. The State Commission took note of the fact that petrol charges for driving the vehicle from Bombay to Gwalior had been borne by the Manufacturers and held that just as the manufacturers/sellers had to spend on petrol, consumed by the cars for effecting delivery at Gwalior, they had to bear the proportionate expenses of lubricants and oil filter required for the aforesaid run and thus the Complainants were entitled to the proportionate price of lubricants and oil filter for the run of 1096 kms. The State Commission rejected the explanation of the present petitioner herein that the distance mentioned in the Owners Service Policy for rendering of adjustment, lubrication services are in addition to kilometers at which the car was delivered and that the first service for the complainants, cars would be available after the cars had actually run 1500 to 1600 Kms. According to the State Commission the inspection, adjustment and lubrication service had to be availed of or given at the actual distance travelled by the vehicles and not on the basis of distances run after the delivery of the car. The non-applicants i.e. present petitioner were also directed to pay a token sum of Rs. 250/- as compensation to each of the complainants for not having effecting lubrication service to the vehicles between the final run of the vehicles between 500 to 800 kms. Rest of the claims of the Complainants were rejected. Feeling aggrieved the Manufacturers of the cars have filed these Revision petitions. According to the petitioners the State Commission has not taken note of the submissions made on behalf of the present petitioners that every car manufactured by the petitioners undergoes a detailed pre-delivery inspection which is done by the Dealer to check and ensure that the car is in perfect good condition and whether lubrication adjustment etc. are required to be done at the time of pre-delivery inspection. Engine oil and oil filter are changed during these pre-delivery inspection. The warranty is provided for three free services at 500/800.kms., 1500/2000Kms. and 3500/4000 Kms. of operation (in addition to the kilometerage at which the car is delivered) applies.

THE learned Counsel of the petitioners also brought to our notice the relevant provision of the warranty card. That provision reads as follows: "As an owner of the New Premier Padmini Car you are entitled to Inspection, Adjustment and Lubrication Service at 500/800 kilometers. 1500/2000 kilometers and 2500/4000 kilometers of operation (in addition to kilometerage at which the car was delivered to you) as listed on the reverse of each coupon. On presentation of the relevant coupon each service shall be performed by any Premier Pad-mini Authorised Dealer at any of these kilometerages without charges to you, except for replacement of filter element, lubricants, brake fluid and antifreeze used. These services do not cover repairs, materials or labour arising out of negligence accident or improper use. For satisfactory performance of your car, it is essential that the first three services are performed by the Premier Padmini Authorised Dealer. However, you have the option to avail of or to forgo the first three services. The benefits under the Warranty are available only if the first three services are performed within the stipulated kilometerage during the Warranty, by the Premier Padmini Authorised Dealers.,,

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners we are of the opinion that the submissions made by the petitioners'' Counsel have force. The mileage/kilometerage reading of the car is to be read, so far as the customer is concerned, from the date of delivery of the car to him. Accordingly the warranty period as far as customer is concerned will start from the date of delivery of the car and for this purpose the kilometer reading prior to the period is not relevant. It is further to be noted that during the warranty period the customer has to pay for the consumable articles like replacement filter, lubricant oil etc. Therefore, we fail to understand how the State Commission has gone against the terms of the warranty. Accordingly we are of the opinion that the State Commission has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Consequently, we accept the present Revision Petition and, set aside the impugned orders and dismiss the complaints filed by the Complainants. We make no order as to costs.