Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Honble Mr. Justice Lakshmana Rao, President;
Mr. Pothuri Venkateswara Rao and Dr. Smt. Vanaja Iyengar, Members
B. RATNAKAR RAO––Appellant
versus
AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS LTD. & OTHERS––Respondents
Consumer Dispute Case No. 5 of 1989—Decided on 3.3.1989
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohan Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.V. Satyanarayan Rao. Advocate.
The sale of a defective vehicle without disclosing the fact that it was involved in an accident before delivery amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - SALE OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLE - COMPENSATION - [SECTION 3, 14, 36A OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986]
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a jeep from the opposite parties, who falsely represented it as a new vehicle directly supplied by the manufacturer. The vehicle was actually involved in an accident before delivery and was reconditioned and renovated. The complainant suffered loss due to the defects in the vehicle and the unfair trade practices adopted by the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practices in the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle was defective at the time of delivery and the opposite parties had failed to disclose the fact that it was involved in an accident before delivery.
Issues: Whether the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practices in the sale of the vehicle to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the opposite parties had adopted unfair trade practices in the sale of the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicle was defective at the time of delivery and the opposite parties had failed to disclose the fact that it was involved in an accident before delivery. The court relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prohibits unfair trade practices and provides for relief to consumers who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such practices.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle of the same description without any defects or to return to the complainant the amount of Rs. 1,32,182/- paid by him towards the price and other charges to the vehicle, within eight weeks from the date of the order. The court also directed the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 200/- per day from April 1, 1989 till the date of either replacement of the vehicle or the return of the price and other charges as directed above.
Mr. Justice Lakshmana Rao, President—The Automotive Manufacturers Limited, the Opposite Party No. 1 herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Registered Office at Bombay. It is a dealer in motor vehicles. It has a Branch Office situate at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad. The Opposite Parties 2 and 3 are the Sales Manager and the Assistant Sales Manager of that branch office respectively.
2. The complainant approached the opposite parties 2 and 3 for the purchase of a jeep. It is stated in the complaint that the opposite parties 2 and 3 represented to him that if a jeep of "Daman billing" is purchased, it would cost less by Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/-. Acting upon their representation the complainant requested them to give quotation for the vehicle CT 640 D.P. 2WD jeep (make Mahindra & Mahindra Daman billing). The opposite parties 2 and 3 had given a quotation dated December 13, 1988. As per that quotation, the specification of the vehicle is Mahindra CJ 640 DP 2WD jeep complete in all respects with tools and accessories as supplied by manufacturers fitted with puegeot diesel engine." The price is quoted as Rs. 1,22,272/-. Towards transportation charged Rs. 2,100/- has to be paid to M/s. Western Transport Agency, Bombay. The payment is required to be made to Automotive Manufactures Limited, Daman payable at Bombay. In addition to the amounts referred to above, the purchaser has to pay Rs. 50/- to the workshop towards handling charges at the time of delivery. It was mentioned in the quotation that if there was any variation in the price between the date of quotation and the actual date of supply of the vehicle, the same shall be to the customer's account.
3. Under the Self-Employment Scheme, the Andhra Bank, Warangal branch sanctioned loan to the complainant for the purchase of the jeep. While so, the opposite parties 2 and 3 informed the complainant that the price of the vehicle was increased by Rs. 7,810/-. The complainant had obtained a Demand Draft No. 252016. dated February 27, 1989 for a sum of Rs. 1,22,272/- drawn on the Andhra Bank in favour of the Automotive Manufacturers Limited and sent it to the opposite party No. 2. He also obtained another Demand Draft dated February 27, 1989 bearing No. 046092 for a sum of Rs. 7,810/- drawn on the Andhra Bank in favour of the Automotive Manufacturers Limited and handed over that draft also to the opposite party No. 2. Through a letter dated February 28, 1989, the opposite party No. 2 forwarded the two Demand Drafts for Rs. 1,22,272/- and Rs. 7,810/- respectively to the opposite party No. 1. When the complainant requested for immediate delivery of the vehicle, he was directed to approach the Head Office, Bombay and contact one by name, Mr. Vasudevan for immediate delivery of the vehicle. While so, through a telegram dated March 6, 1989, the complainant was intimated that the price of the vehicle was further increased by Rs. 10,166/-. He was accordingly asked to remit that amount along with transportation charges of Rs. 2,100/-. Then, the complainant requested the opposite parties 2 and 3 through the letter dated March 9, 1989 to treat the order placed by him for the purchase of a jeep as cancelled and arrange for refund of the amount paid by him. It is stated in the complaint that, thereafter the opposite parties 2 and 3 persuaded the complainant not to cancel the order assuring him that they will supply the jeep of Daman billing at a price of Rs. 1,32,182/- inclusive of transport, insurance and temporary registration charges. It is the case of the complainant that bonafide believing the said representation made by the opposite parties 2 and 3, he had withdrawn the proposal for cancellation of the order and remitted Rs. 2,100/- towards transport, insurance and temporary registration charges.
4. A jeep with chassis No. DL 20786 was delivered to the complainant by the opposite parties 2 and 3 on March 17, 1989 at Secunderabad under delivery receipt dated M
