S.N. CHAPHEKAR AND COMPANY vs Bajaj Tempo Limited

THE complainant has filed this complaint for award of compensation of Rs. 12 lakhs, in respect of the defective motor Tempo Traveller Micro Bus, supplied by the opposite party in November, 1994. THE complainant has contended that on payment of price of Rs. 3,63,459/- he purchased the above bus bearing registration No. MH-04-N-5598. THE purchase was made in November, 1994. However, soon thereafter, serious defects were noticed on 28.7.1995, when the complainant was proceeding to Lonawala, brakes failed and the vehicle was left and the same was removed by one Mr. Sharad of opposite party No. 2. THEreafter, several times, the vehicle was found to be defective. However, the vehicle has been detained in the garage of opposite party No. 2 and that the opposite parties have not been able to carry out repairs of this vehicle and hence the complainant should be awarded back the refund of the entire price or should be given replacement. He has suffered immensely and therefore, the complainant has claimed Rs. 12 lakhs.

NOW, the first instance, we find that the complainant recorded the defects on 3.1.1995 i.e. within about 3 weeks of taking delivery on 8.12.1994. Surprisingly, he did not lodge the complaint with the opposite parties. It is for the first time, in the month of July, 1995, the complainant sent the vehicle to the garage of the opposite party. Thereafter, it seems that the vehicle was repaired from time to time. However, the complainant refused to lift the vehicle and hence Car Mart gave the notice that the vehicle shall not be returned unless, the demurrage paid at the rate of Rs. 300/- per day. NOW, in this regard, we find that, although, the vehicle was found defective, according to the complainant within 3 to 4 weeks of taking delivery in December, 94. The said vehicle was not sent for repairs with the opposite party. On 28th of July, itself for the first time, the vehicle sent for repairs. This would therefore, show that although the complainant had used the vehicle for a fairly long time, he did not notice any defect and that the letter dated 3.1.1995 is in the nature of creation on the part of the complainant to claim the refund of the price in future. We feel that the conduct of the complainant does not appear to be consistent with this case, that the vehicle was defective, right from the beginning. It is the short point we find that the complainant cannot be entertained. Apart from that in spite of the notices of opposite party 2, Car Mart, the complainant did not approach Car Mart and did not try to explain as to why the vehicle was not lifted. In that event, the garage claims the demurrage or garage charges. We feel that the claim cannot be without any justification. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the bona fides of the complainant and accordingly we pass the following order : ORDER The complaint is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.