S.C.BEMBALGI vs SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD

IN pursuance of the advertisement given by the Respondent No. 1 in various papers to the effect that Mitsubishi Engine of Japan would be used in Montana Diesel Car, the complainant approached Respondent No. 2 who is the authorised dealer of Respondent No. 1 for purchasing the said car. The 2nd respondent assured the complainant that Mitsubishi engine would be used in Montana Diesel Car and he also gave him Annexure-A on 26-12- 1990. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,15,024/- by way of Demand Draft towards the costs of the said car and took delivery of the car on 12-2-1991 from the respondents as per the Delivery Note, Annexure-B, apart from the advance of Rs. 10,000/- paid earlier. The car was later registered as KA-24 M6. From the date of taking delivery of the car, the car was not giving good service to the complainant. It was not repaired by the Second Respondent on 19.2.1991. Later, the complainant found that the engine used in the car was Jaya engine manufactured at Coimbatore instead of Mitsubishi engine of Japan make. Hence, he has filed this complaint for recovery of the cost price of the car and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs.

THE complaint is resisted by the respondents by contending inter-alia that they did not advertise in the paper that the car would be fitted with Mitsubishi engine of Japan make; that the 2nd respondent did not assure the complainant that car would be fitted with Mitsubishi engine and that the complainant is not entitled to any other reliefs claimed by him. The complainant has given evidence in support of his complaint and has produced exhibits CI to C4. No evidence has adduced on behalf of the respondents.

It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Montana Diesel Car bearing Registration No. KA-24 M6 from the respondents by paying Rs. 1,25,024/- on 12.2.1991 and took delivery of the car on the same day. The complainant has produced Exhibit C-2, the copy of the Deccan Herald dated 4.7.1989. In it, the respondent No. 1 had advertised stating that the engine was manufactured by V.S.T. Trillers & Tractors in Bangalore with joint collaboration with Mitsubishi of Japan Exhibit C-2 was marked by consent. In the Hand-book Exhibit C-3 given to the complainant by the respondents, it is mentioned at Page 44 that the engine of the car was Mitsubishi K3C model. Hence, we are satisfied that the respondent had held out to the complainant that the engine of the car that he has purchased was fitted with Mitsubishi engine. It is not disputed by the respondents that the engine of the car was Jaya Engine manufactured at Coimbatore Hence we hold that the respondents have used unfair trade practice in selling the car to the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost price of the car. As the complainant has used the car, he is not entitled to any interest by way of compensation.

IN the result, the complaint is allowed and the Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 1,25,024/- and costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant, on the complainant giving the delivery of the car to them, within one month from today. Complaint allowed.