SANJAY MAJITHIA vs Premier Automobiles Ltd

THE complain- ant purchased one 118 NE motor car from M/s. Delhi Automobiles, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, on 29.6.1993, but according to the allegations made, it did not give satisfactory service and a complaint was instituted claiming replacement of the motor car together with damages in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. This complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh on 9.2.1998. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant.

IT is not disputed that the motor car in question was purchased from respondent-2 on 28.6.1993. The complaint has mainly been dismissed holding that the motor car had covered a distance of 27,000 kms. at the expiry of one year of its purchase and any defect, if noticed thereafter, could not be held as a manufacturing defect. In order to assail the plea of the respondent, and the aforesaid finding, the learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a letter dated 7.12.1994 written by the complainant to the General Manager of M/s. Premier Automobiles Limited, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kuria, Bombay and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: "On 5th of December, 1994, I left the car with Delhi Automobiles, Chandigarh to prepare a report on engine compression. The car was not released on the same day as I was told in the evening that they are still in the process of compression recording. On 6th of December, when after finishing my Court work, I went to collect the car, I was informed that the piston rings in the car have been replaced. The Manager (Sales) Delhi Automobiles told me that though the car having done 27,227 kms., is out of warranty yet without charging anything they have repaired the engine. Although I insisted but I was not given any purchase bills by virtue of which original piston rings had been purchased for replacement. I just managed to note down that vide Job Car No. 035317 dated December 5,1994, the following parts had been changed : 1. One set-piston rings. 2. Valve seal set. 3. Chamber gasket 4. Cylinder Head gasket Dazed I brought the car back home. Sir, without my permission, Delhi Automobiles Ltd., Chandigarh has changed the piston rings of the car. I am in a state of acute shock and feel cheated because within one and half year of delivery, a self driven, well maintained car has almost finished one life span. Even the loan due on it is to be completed in March, 1995." This letter was acknowledged by the Head Office of the appellant on 13.12.1994 and the local dealers were advised to pay prompt attention to the grievances of the complainant. On behalf of the appellant, considerable stress has been laid on the fact that why merely after covering 27,000 kms., the respondents felt the necessity of opening the engine and replacing the rings and that too without prior notice to the owner and without charging anything even after the warranty period. May be that the respondents wanted to keep it concealed that the working of the engine was really not found satisfactory. Normally a perfect engine does not require extensive repairs and replacement of rings merely after covering 27,000 kms. This established that the engine was defective and it necessitated the complainant to come to the respondent for redressal of his grievance. That being so, the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum that the engine was not having a manufacturing defect is not well-founded. We thus accept the plea raised on behalf of the appellant as nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice by the respondents.

Though the respondents have tried to satisfy this Commission with the customary satisfaction reports dated 6.12.1994 and 22.12.1994, yet there is nothing on record to show that the pleas raised by the appellant in his letter addressed to the Head Office had at any time been specifically controverted. Another plea raised by the respondent is that the second service was got done by the complainant from a service station other than an authorised one. This itself will not render the consumer ineligible to seek the reliefs

IN view of the evidence and reasons briefly discussed above, we set aside the impugned order and hold that the vehicle in question was not up to the mark and it constituted deficiency. Since the vehicle in question is still stated to be with the appellant, there is no good ground for its replacement at this stage. However, it is ordered that he respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as damages within a period of 2 months failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest on this sum @ 18% p.a. with effect from the date of copy of misjudgment is received. Appeal disposed of.