Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Honble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Mr. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs. ) Avtar Pennathur, Member
SH. SUDHIR SARAN BHATNAGAR––Appellant
versus
CHAIRMAN, COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. (P) LTD. & OTHERS––Respondents
Case No. C-78/90—Decided on 22.2.1991

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant: Sh. S.S. Bhatnagar.
For the Respondent No. 1:Sh. Atul Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Sh. B.S. Bhargave.

The definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, includes goods suffering from one or more defects, and services suffering from deficiency in any respect. In the present case, the defects in the car and the services provided by the defendants for rectifying the defects fell within the definition of 'complaint'.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(e) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - CAR - WARRANTY - REPLACEMENT - DAMAGES - COSTS - INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION OF 'COMPLAINT' - JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER COURT - LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER AND DEALER - DUTY TO RECTIFY DEFECTS - MENTAL AGONY AND PAIN - COURTESY TO CUSTOMERS - EXTENSION OF WARRANTY.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant purchased a new Maruti car from the dealer, defendant No. 1, which started giving trouble from the date of purchase. Despite repeated visits to the workshop for repairs, two defects, namely, hard clutch and improper pickup, persisted. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Court seeking replacement of the car, extension of warranty, reimbursement of repair bills, traveling expenses, and damages for mental tension and harassment.
Finding of the Court:

The Consumer Court held that the defects in the car amounted to 'defects' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the services provided by the defendants for rectifying the defects were deficient. The court found that the dealer failed to remove the defects despite repeated attempts, and that the manufacturer was liable to get the defects rectified.
Issues: 1. Whether the defects in the car constituted 'defects' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? 2. Whether the services provided by the defendants for rectifying the defects were deficient? 3. Whether the dealer was liable to replace the car or extend the warranty period? 4. Whether the manufacturer was liable to get the defects rectified? 5. Whether the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of repair bills and traveling expenses? 6. Whether the complainant was entitled to damages for mental tension and harassment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that the defects in the car fell within the definition of 'defect' and that the services provided by the defendants for rectifying the defects were deficient. 2. The court held that the dealer failed to remove the defects despite repeated attempts, and that the manufacturer was liable to get the defects rectified. 3. The court held that the complainant was entitled to reimbursement of repair bills and traveling expenses, but not to damages for mental tension and harassment.
Final Decision: The Consumer Court accepted the complaint and directed the manufacturer to get the defects rectified from an authorized workshop to be named by the complainant. The court also directed the defendants to pay the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,295.00 within a period of one month from the date of the order.

ORDER

R.N. Mittal, President—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.

(d) payment of Rs. 20,000/- as damages for causing mental tension, harassment inconvenience, loss of time and energy etc.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document