SUNDARAM MOTORS vs B.J.RAJAGOPAL

BOTH these appeals, A-173/92 by Opp. Party No. 1 and A-174/92 by the complainant, are directed against the order dated 8.7.1992 passed by the District Forum, Bangalore, in Complaint No.300 of 1991, allowing the complaint in part.

THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows: - THE undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant had booked for a car Premier 118 NE from the the Opp, Party No. 1. THE Opp. Party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said car. He had booked for the said car even prior to 1989 and paid the balance price of the same in a sum of Rs. l,55,765.45p. to Opp. Party No. 1 on 25.7.1989 towards the purchase price of the said car. Opp. Party No. 1 collected a further sum of Rs. 8,876.40 while delivering the said car to him on 14.8.1989, the car actually was delivered to him on 28.8.1989. THE complainant averred that the Opp. Party had no right to collect this excess amount of Rs. 8,876.40p. from him. The second grievance made by the complainant was that the car was giving a low mileage of 10 km per litre as against the assured mileage of 17 km per litre. The complainant on the basis of these averments sought refund of Rs. 8,876.40p., collected by the Opp. Party from him at the time of delivery of the car and for rectification of the fuel efficiency of the car so as to give 17 kms per litre.

Both the Opp. Parties filed statement of objections and contended that the price of the type of the car in question came to be increased on 7.8.1989, in view of the increase in the price of the inputs, and the complainant was bound to pay the same in terms of the conditions of the booking.

THE Opp. Parties further averred that the grievance of low mileage by the complainant was not true. THE engine of the said vehicle in question was checked in the month of December 1989 in the presence of the complainant which disclosed that the vehicle gave an average of 18.6 km per litre. THE complainant had accepted this. fact as satisfactory by his endorsement made on the check report on 7.12.1989, THE Opp. Parties on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. Both the parties did not lead any evidence. The District Forum heard the parties and considered Ex. PI, a copy of the circular regarding revised price issued by the manufacturer, Opp. Party No. 2 with effect from 7.8,1989 and Ex. P2, a copy of the delivery challan issued by the manufacturer on 18.8.1989 and held that the Opp. Parties were justified in collecting the extra price of Rs. 8,876.40p. Though the District Forum held that the fuel efficiency of the vehicle would depend on so many factors including the condition of the road. the quantum on the traffic on the road, driving habit of the driver, etc., even then, it directed Opp. Party No. 1 to inspect the vehicle in question and see that the vehicle was able to give the maximum fuel efficiency, that is, to the extent of at least 15 km per litre.

THE records have been called for and received. We have heard the complainant and the learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties. The complainant booked for the car with the Opp. Parties in the year 1985 itself. The Opp. Parties by their letter on 25.7.1989 intimated the complainant, the price particulars for the said car as by that time his booking had matured and car was to be delivered in the month of August 1989. In the said letter one of the conditions for the sale of the said car reads thus:- "The above is ruling price. Price is subject to change without notice and the price ruling at the time of actual delivery will only apply". It is not disputed that the price came to be revised and enhanced in a sum of Rs. 8,876.40 with effect from 7.8.89. Ex. P-2 shows that the delivery challan was issued by the manufacturer on 18.8.1989 and the dealer took stock of the same on 22.8.1989. As referred above, by the time the delivery of the said car was made to the complainant, the price was revised and enhanced. The complainant was bound to pay the price ruling at the time of actual delivery of the car to him as per the terms and conditions of the letter dated 25.7.1989 referred to above. The complainant has not placed any material on record to show that the dealer had vehicle in readiness for being delivered to the complainant even prior to 7.8.1989. Having regard to these facts, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the District Forum holding that the Opp. Parties were justified in collecting the enhanced price from the complainant is just and proper and it does not call for any interference. So appeal No. 174/1992 by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

WITH regard to the other point, that is, regarding the direction given by the District Forum to Opp. Party No. 1 to check up the vehicle and see that the vehicle gives maximum fuel efficiency, that is, to the extent of at least 15 km per litre, though Opp. Party No. 1 has challenged this direction given by the District Forum in appeal No. 173/92, when the matter came up for hearing before us on 12.10.92, the Opp. Parties readily agreed to inspect the vehicle and to check up its fuel efficiency.

THE complainant produced before the Opp. Parties his vehicle on 4.11.1992 and it was checked up for fuel efficiency in the presence of a Notary Sri D.S. Narasimhan, Representative of Automobile Association, Southern India Ltd., Sri Chandramohan, Assistant Works Manager of Opp. Party No. 1, Sri Ricky Service Representative of Opp. Party No. 2 and the complainant. THE Notary, the Secretary of the Automobile Association, South India and Mr. Ricky have filed the report before us on 12.11.1992. THE report shows that the car on its onward journey, when it was driven by Mr. Ricky gave 8.6 kms for 500 ml of fuel consumption i.e., 17.2 kms per Itr., on the return journey, the car was driven by the complainant which gave 7.1 kms for 500ml. of fuel consumption i.e. 14.2 km sperltr.THE complainant admitted these material facts. The Opp. Parties have also placed on record one other material that shows that the vehicle was checked and its fuel efficiency test was carried out by the Opp. Parties in the presence of the complainant on 7.12.1989 which disclosed that the vehicle gave an average of 18.6 kms per ltr. The complainant has given the certificate of satisfaction on 7.12.1989.

These circumstances would go to show that the Opp. Parties have virtually complied with the direction given by the District Forum to inspect the vehicle and see that the vehicle was able to give maximum fuel efficiency to the extent of at least 15 kms per litre.

HAVING regard to these facts, we do not see any merit in the contention of the complainant that it was not properly checked according to Government of India Rules. However, we are unable to. agree with the finding of the District Forum that the Opp. Party has to issue warranty for a period of one year from the date of the order of the District Forum. As it is evident, in the month of December, 1989 itself, the vehicle was checked by the Opp. Parties for its fuel efficiency and it was found that, it gave 18.6 kms. per litre for which the complainant gave certificate of satisfaction on 7.12.1989. Even after a lapse of 3 years when it was checked on 4.11.1992, it was found that it gave approximately 15 km per Itr. So we do not find any justification to issue a warranty in this behalf for a further period of one year as directed by the District Forum.

IN the result, therefore. Appeal No. 174/92 by the complainant fails and it is dismissed. Appeal No. 173/1992 by Opp. Party No. 1 is partly allowed and the direction of the District Forum regarding issue of a warranty for a period of one year from the date of its order is set aside. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs. Appeal No. 173/92 partly allowed. Appeal No. 174/92 dismissed. _____________