AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BRIEFLY the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new Deluxe Maruti Car bearing registration No. DBM-8 on 3rd July, 1989 from the Competent Automobiles Company, defendant No. 1. It is pleaded that it started giving trouble from the date of purchase. It was sent to the workshop for removing the defects in the first year about 14 times. On one occasion the car, it is alleged, remained in the workshop of defendant No. 2 for 16 days. He was required to pay for the repairs on some occasions but inspite of that, two defects of the car have not been removed by the defendant till date. These defects are; first, clutch is hard and secondly, pickup of the car is not proper. He also pleaded misbehaviour on the part of employees of respondent No. l. He claimed the following reliefs against the defendants:- (a) replacement of car or in the alternative for extension of warranty period for another 5 years. (b) repayment of bills to the complainant amounting to Rs. 571.63p. (c) payment of travelling expenses amounting to Rs. 722.50p. incurred by him on taxi-scooters. (d) payment of Rs. 20,000/- as damages for causing mental tension, harassment inconvenience, loss of time and energy etc.
THE claim has been contested by the defendants. Defendant No. 1 in their written statement admitted that the complainant brought the car to them for repairs on many occasions. However, they pleaded that they always repaired the car. THEy further stated that the car had no defect much less a serious defect. Other allegations are denied by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 in their written statement took preliminary objection that the Commission had no jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits it is pleaded by them that defendant No. 1 attended to the vehicle of the complainant whenever it was taken to their workshop for repair an that there was no deficiency in service or the goods supplied to the complainant. The defects if any were of minor nature and subject to correction. They further pleaded that the problems pointed out by the complainant from time to time were rectified by defendant No. 1 and the vehicle remained in good condition.
We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The claimant has pointed out that now others are two defects left in the car, namely (i) clutch of the car is hard and (ii) its pick-up is not proper. These defects were pointed out by Mr. Bhatnagar many times to the respondents but the same have not been rectified by them till date. No owner of a new car would like to go to a workshop again and again for repairs or write letters regarding defects to the dealer, if there are no defects in it. Various defects were pointed out by the complainants to defendant No. 1 in the letters dated 19.7.89, 28.7.89, 3.8.89, 14.8.89 dated nil (page 47), dated nil (page 40), dated 24.1.90, 12.4.90, 7.6.90 and to defendant No. 2 in his letters dated 7.8.89, dated 11.8.89 (page 59), dated 15.8.89 (page 55) dated 22.2.90. It is rather very surprising that the two defects could not be rectified by the defendants inspite of his having taken to car to the workshop many times. The defects were pointed out during warranty period (see letters dated 19.7.89 and 15.8.89). It was the duty of the defendants to get them rectified. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the defendants are liable to get both the defects of the car removed. It appears that defendant No. 1 failed to remove the defects pointed out by the complainant. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to send the car for repairs to any other authorised workshop of defendant No. 2. The complainant shall give a list of three authorised workshops within a period of 10 days from the date of order and respondent No. 2 shall choose one of those workshops for getting the needful done. The car shall be got repaired by defendent No. 2 free of charge and if replacement of any part is required, defendent No. 2 shall provide that part free of charge. The car shall remain under warranty regarding these two defects till they are got rectified by respondent No. 2. Warranty regarding those two defects shall come to an end if the car remains free of these defects for a continuous period of three months.
THE complainant has further argued that the employees of respondent No. 1 did not behave well with him on 7. 1. 90. It is alleged by him in the complaint that the workshop, Manager of respondent No. 1 said to him as follows: "I know that you have a spare steno and as such you are in the habit of writing letters. But do not write such letters to me. Write to the Company. I have extended you courtesy so far but I will not extend any courtesy in future."
These remarks were made by him when the complainant pointed out that he should not be charged for the repairs and replacements. We are of the opinion that a Manager of a workshop is not expected to make any contemptuous remarks against any customer of a company.
THE Complainant wrote about these remarks to the General Manager of respondent No. l with copies to the Managing Director of respondent No. l and Managing Director of respondent No. 2. THE General Manager to respondent No. 1 replied to the said letter vide his letter dated 20th January, 1990. He did not contradict the fact. He even did not express any regret regarding the conduct of the Manager of the workshop. It is really very sad that the Companies have become parties to such actions of their employees. THE minimum courtesy expected from the Management was to have written to the complainant that they were looking into the matter. Even that was denied to the complainant. We highly depreciate this act of defendant No. 1. It is but natural that such incidents cause intense mental agony and pain to the customer. We expect Maruti Udyog, respondent No. 2, to write to their dealers to extend highest courtesy to the customers and take motion against them, if they fail to do so. We are, however, not inclined to give any damages to the complainant on this count. The complainant had to visit the workshop of the respondents many times for repair of the car. In addition to the waste of time it involved additional expenditure. The complainant has demanded an amount of Rs. 722.50p. on account of travelling expenses. We have set no reasons to disbelieve the complainant in this regard. Consequently, we accept the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs. 722.50p. The complainant has also claimed an amount of Rs. 571.63p. on account of bills paid by him for the repairs. We also do not disbelieve him on this regard and grant the same to him. Before parting with the judgment it may be mentioned that an objection has been taken by respondent No. 2 that the claim petition does not fall within the definition of word ''complaint'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. We have duly considered the matter but do not find substance therein. The car was sold to the complainant by respondent No. 1 with a warranty. Defendant No. 2 is the manufacturer of the car. Clause (e) of Sub-section 1 of Section 2 contains the definition of word ''complaint''. According to the definition it inter alia includes the good mentioned in the complaint suffering from one or more defects, and the services suffering from deficiency in any respect. In the present case, initial the Court suffered from various defects including the above said two defects, the two defects pointed out by the complainant full within the definition of the word defect as defined in the Act. The service provided to him by the defendants for rectifying the said defects were deficient as defined therein. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim petition filed by the complainant falls within the definition of word ''complaint''.
FOR the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint with costs and direct respondent No. 2 to get the defects rectified from an authorised workshop to be named by the complainant. We further direct the respondents to pay the amount of Rs. 1,295.00 to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. The complainant shall furnish the list of three workshops by 15.3.90. Costs Rs. 500.00. Complaint accepted.