SECRETARY, BELLARY CITIZENS FORUM vs SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD.

AFTER hearing the Complainant and the Learned Counsel for the respondents and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following:

ONE Mr. Om prakash purchased a Montana Diesel Car from respondent No. 1 through Respondent No. 2on3.7.1990 by paying Rs. 1,16,650/- in pursuance of the advertisement given by Respondent No.l in the press and the statement at Page No. 44 of the owner''s handbook issued by respondent No. 1 and also believing the statement in Para (2) of the letter dated 7.8.1989 of Respondent No. 1 that vehicle''s performance was unmatched by any other car of its class and that the said car was fitted with the engine of Mitsubishi (Japan). The complainant had all along insisted on the car fitted with Mitsubishi engine being supplied to him (vide letter dated 8.5.1990). But after taking delivery of the car, the complainant found that the car was not working properly and was not giving him satisfactory service. He also found that the engine fitted to the car was Jaya engine and not Mitsubishi engine. Even after getting it repaired, the car was not still giving him satisfactory service. Hence, he has filed this complaint for refund of the cost price of the car through the Secretary, Bellary Citizens'' Forum. Respondent No. 1 has resisted the complaint by contending inter-alia that M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd., has sold the Montana Diesel car to Sri Om prakash on 3.7.1990; that the company bad no intention to bind itself in contract that the car would be fitted with Mitsubishi Diesel engine through advertisement in newspapers and magazines; that no such term was embodied in the agreement; that it bad informed the Purchaser that since the Mitsubishi engine was not available in the market, Montana Diesel car fitted with Jaya engine was only available for delivery; that it has never mislead or misrepresented to the purchaser; that the Company made necessary efforts to fit the VST Mitsubishi engine but because of unforeseen things, the company had to abandon their idea to fit Mitsubishi engine to the car, that the car delivered to the purchaser in this case is in no way sub-standard and that it is more efficient in performance; that the defects noticed in the car are not due to manufacturing but due to other reasons, such as use of quality diesel and non-maintenance of engine, etc., improper way of engaging of gears and bad handling and that the purchaser is not entitled to the refund of the amount claimed.

It is not disputed before us that the respondent did give an advertisement which was published in ''Deccan Herald'' dated 4.7.1989 stating that the engine was manufactured by VST Tractors in Bangalore with joint collaboration with Mitsubishi of Japan. It is also not disputed before us that at page No. 44 of the Owner''s hand book, it has been stated that the engine fitted to the car was Mitsubishi K3C. It is also not disputed before us by the respondents that the car supplied to Sri Om Prakash (Purchaser) is fitted with Jaya engine and not Mitsubishi engine. The complainant had specifically requested Respondent No. 2 that he must be supplied with car fitted with Mitsubishi engine. The complainant has also stated that he on seeing the performance of the car fitted with Mitsubishi engine which was demonstrated by the employees of respondent No. 1 to him, purchased the car. Looking to the fact that the advertisement was published in the paper by the respondent, the said version of the complainant appears to be true. It is also not disputed that the car was repaired within a short time after the sale and that it continues to have the defects even now as stated by the complainant. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the respondent No.l has adopted unfair trade practice by supplying the car which was not fitted with Mitsubishi engine as stated in the advertisement and by supplying the car fitted with Jaya engine to the purchaser. Hence the purchaser is entitled to the refund of the cost price. But as the purchaser has used the car, he is not entitled to any interest on the said amount.

IN the Result, the complaint is allowed and respondents are directed to pay Rs. 1,16,650/- to Sri Om Prakash who had purchased the car together with costs of Rs. 500/- within one month from today. Sri Om Prakash shall execute the necessary documents in favour of the respondents who are in possession of the car, before receiving the amount from the respondents. Complaint allowed with costs. _______________