R.K.BAJAJ vs WHEEL WORLD

Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member

THE appellate jurisdiction of this Commission has been invoked by Mr. R.K. Bajaj against the order dated 23.12.1999 by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Complaint Case No. 1186/93/M/98. THE District Forum had in its order directed the opposite parties M/s. Wheel World to pay Rs. 12,000/- towards the compensation in addition to interest @ 8% on the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- from May, 1998 to 12 June, 1990 within 30 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed. In pursuance to an advertisement given by the respondents the appellant Mr. R.K. Bajaj paid Rs. 10,000/- towards the booking amount of Montana Diesel Passenger Car in May, 1998. The appellant has averred that the respondents had assured to pay interest @ 12% on the booking amount as the date of delivery of the vehicle was not specified at the time of the booking. On June 12,1990 the car was delivered after the appellant deposited balance of the price of the car i.e. Rs. 1,18,000/- to the respondent No. 1. The appellant has further averred that only 3 days after the delivery of the car its engine got seized at Chandigarh. The same when inspected by Swami Motors, Chandigarh, the authorised dealer of opposite parties, it was found that the Head Gasket of the engine had burst. The appellant/complainant has also alleged that the advertisement in pursuance to which he had decided to buy the above mentioned vehicle specifically mentioned the engine to be of Mitusubishi make. When examined it was found to be of some unknown make and of inferior quality which resulted in above mentioned seizure. However, no copy of the above mentioned advertisement has been placed on record. The appellant has further alleged that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not respond to his communications and he had to visit respondent No. 1 personally to explain the various defects occurring one after the other to the new vehicle. The appellant has also averred that he had to spend Rs. 20,000/- in getting replaced the various parts of the car within first year of its purchase when it was still under the warranty period. A letter dated nil addressed to respondent No. 3 M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. 25-26, Industrial Suburb, II, Tumkur Road, Bangalore-500 022 impleaded as respondent No. 3 gives the details of the defects which occurred during the warranty period and the consequent problems faced by the appellant/complainant. The car was shown to respondent No. 4, M/s. Wheel Drives, 25/6, Ram Darbar, phase-II, Chandigarh as directed by respondent No. 3. However, the complainant/respondent has alleged that since it could not be made roadworthy, he on 15.2.1992 visited respondent No. 1 at Ambala personally and requested for replacing the above mentioned vehicle with a petrol car. Opposite party No. 2 agreed to replace his diesel run car with a new Montana Petrol Engine, on 7.8.1992 and the difference in the price of Rs. 7,500/- was paid by the appellant and same acknowledged vide Receipt No. 338 dated 7.8.1992. The complainant has further averred that actually this car sold as new was a repainted one and it was not a 1992 model but some old and used car. Further the complainant has alleged that this car given to him subsequently being of the same make, is not in working order and is lying parked in a garage since 1993. The respondent/complainant has alleged that he has been deprived of the pleasure of using new car and rather he has been put to lot of inconvenience and harassment for selling a car not matching with the description in the advertisement. Further due to apathetic attitude of the respondents towards the problems faced by him on account of this defective vehicle the appellant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs. 2,03,000/-.

The case was contested by respondent No.1 Wheel World, 126-B, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) only and the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were proceeded against ex-parte. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1 on 2.5.1994 it is stated that as per Clause 9 of the Terms and Conditions contained in the Agreement Form 8% interest on the booking amount was payable in the event of delivery only. The respondent/opposite party has averred that appellant/complainant was unnecessarily creating an issue about the engine of car being not a Mitusubishi make. However, they have clarified that vide Clause 19 of Common Order Purchase Booking Form the right of technical specifications is reserved with the manufacturer only and consequently respondent No. 1 cannot be held liable as they are only local dealers of the above mentioned manufacturer. The liability for any manufacturing defect in vehicle is of respondent No. 3, M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd., 25-26, Industrial Suburb II, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. The respondent has further averred that complainant''s vehicle was running without any problem and he refuted the allegation of engine of the disputed vehicle having been seized at any stage. To controvert the allegation of the appellant/complainant about the various defects and problems in the car, the respondents have stated that appellant/complainant visited their premises on 17.6.1990 and requested them to extend the mileage of his first free service from 1500 kms. to 2000 kms. as appellant was planning to go on a long trip with his family. A letter written by the appellant has been placed on the record stating the same. The respondents have averred that had there been any problem with the vehicle the appellant would have mentioned the same to them and a long trip in the same vehicle with so many defects would not have been possible to be undertaken by him. The respondents have further stated that the change sought by the appellant from the diesel to petrol version of the car was for change of taste and because of the petrol run vehicle is noise free as compared to the one run on diesel. The petrol car given in exchange for the diesel one was stated to be brand new and given to the appellant as first owner. The allegations of same being repainted or old or used one were vehemently denied.

THE District Forum-I, in its order held that the complainant had to incur total expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- during the period 4.7.990 to 25.4.1992 as stands proved by the details of the above repairs appended as Annexures C-8 to C-22. But the main plea of the complainant that the engine got seized after 3 days of the purchase of the vehicle has not been accepted by the District Forum-I. THE District Forum-I has placed reliance on a letter dated 17.6.1990 (Annexure-ZX), written by the complainant/appellant requesting the opposite party-Company to allow him to get first free service after 2000 kilometres instead of 1500 kilometres as the appellant/complainant was going on a long holiday trip. THE District Forum held that had there been any such major defect in the vehicle like seizure of the engine as alleged, the complainant would not have undertaken a long holiday in such a vehicle with serious defect in a crucial part like engine. THE District Forum-I, further held that the appellant/complainant did suffer financial loss as he had to spend on the repairs of the new vehicle approximately Rs. 5,000/- in the initial years of its purchase. THE appellant/complainant also had to undergo inconvenience and loss of time for which the District Forum-I awarded Rs. 7,000/- as compensation. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 12,000/- on account of repairs and compensation for harassment was awarded in the case. Though the allegations of the complainant that the second car is lying parked in the garrage since 1993 and is not being used by him was also alleged but not proved hence no compensation was awarded for the same. THE District Forum also directed the opposite parties to pay interest on the booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- from May, 1998 to 12th June, 1998 @ 8% as the same has been admitted to be payable by the opposite parties in their written statement. THE above Rs. 12,000/- and interest on the booking amount was ordered to be paid within 30 days of the order of the District Forum-I. Aggrieved against the above order the complainant Mr. R.K. Bajaj preferred this appeal before this Commission. Notice of the appeal was sent by registered post to all the respondents but the summons were returned. The appellant chose to inform the respondents through publication in the daily Indian Express on November 18, 2000. Since none among the respondents put in appearance inspite of above stated publication, the appeal was listed for hearing on 11.1.2001. The respondents were proceeded against ex-parte. Mr. Tarsem Lal Jindal, Advocate appeared as Counsel for the appellant. The main plea of the appellant has been that the District Forum has not been able to appreciate loss suffered by him due to the defective vehicle sold to him by the respondent. The order of the District Forum-I, has also been assailed on the ground that the Forum placed too much and undue importance to a letter written by the complainants that they were going on a long holiday trip in the said vehicle. The appellant has however alleged that apparently the car had no defect at that point of time. But the defects crept in as the time passed. The appellant has further contended that even the second vehicle is not roadworthy and is parked in garage since 1993. A reference has been made to the decision of Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case cited as Sipani Automobiles v. Tejinder Singh Grewal, 1995 (I) CPC 318, in which the complete refund of the original price of the car was ordered to the complainant along with interest @ 18% interest. Apart from it another case of Vijay Juneja v. United India Insurance Company, I (1995) CPJ 6 (NC)=1995 (I) CPC 362, decided by National Commission has also been cited in support of his contention by the appellant. After perusing details of the cases cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of these cases does not apply to the case in hand because for the manufacturing defects of any piece of machinery each case has to be decided according to the defects ascertained. After the perusal of the material on record the facts of one case cannot be said to apply as far as manufacturing or other defects in the vehicle are concerned. Hence these cases are of not much help in quantifying the loss caused in the present case. The appellant has reiterated that the District Forum-I has not been able to quantify his losses properly and he has prayed for the refund of the total price of Rs. 1,28,000/- along with 18% interest from the date of deposit as ordered by Hon''ble National Commission in the case cited above.

WE have gone through the entire record of the case and the pleadings of the appellant before this Commission. On the basis of the material on record this Commission is of the considered opinion that the District Forum-I has on the basis of the material produced on the record rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant has not been able to prove that the engine of the vehicle was seized immediately after the purchase. The expenditure of Rs. 5,000/- incurred on the repairs of the vehicle has been granted to the complainant along with Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for the harassment. On the basis of the material produced on record, we find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum-I, as each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and on the basis of the material produced on record to prove the pleadings. Consequently the order of the District Forum-I is upheld and the same is to be complied within three months of the date of this order. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. Appeal dismissed.