Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Miss S. Brar, Member, Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member
DR. GEETA KAMPANI—Complainant
versus
M/s. SIPANI AUTOMOBILES LTD. & OTHERS—Opposite Parties
Case No. C-24 of 1992—Decided on 21.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant :Mrs. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.R. Handa, Advocate.
The manufacturer and dealer are liable for a defective car and must refund the purchase price, the cost of repairs, interest, and damages for mental pain and suffering.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SALE OF GOODS ACT - SECTION 12, 14, 15, 16 - DEFECTIVE CAR - JURISDICTION - REFUND OF PRICE - DAMAGES - INTEREST - MENTAL PAIN AND SUFFERING - MANUFACTURER AND DEALER HELD LIABLE FOR DEFECTIVE CAR.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Montana car from respondent No. 3, an agent of respondent No. 1, the manufacturer. Within four months and 3,900 kilometers, the car developed problems with the gearbox, clutch, and pressure plate. The complainant had the car repaired by respondent No. 4, another agent of respondent No. 1, but the problems persisted. The car's axle broke completely, and the complainant had to spend Rs. 4,000 to repair it. The complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission, seeking a refund of the purchase price, damages, and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as no part of the cause of action arose in Bangalore, where the manufacturer's head office was located. The Commission found that the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, the cost of repairs, interest, and damages for mental pain and suffering.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. Whether the complainant was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, damages, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no part of the cause of action arose in Bangalore, where the manufacturer's head office was located. 2. The complainant is entitled to a refund of the purchase price, the cost of repairs, interest, and damages for mental pain and suffering, as the manufacturer and dealer were liable for the defective car.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed with costs, and the respondents were directed to pay the complainant Rs. 1,55,400, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint until the date of payment. The respondents were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,500.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased a car of Montana make from respondent No. 3 at Lucknow for a total price of Rs. 1,08,800/-, on 12.7.90. The car is manufactured by M/s. Sipani Automobiles Ltd.,-respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are the agents of respondent No. 1 at Lucknow and Delhi respectively. Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of respondent No. 1.
2. The warranty of the car was given for a period of six months or 8000 Kms. which was earlier. It is alleged that within a period of four months, when it had done hardly 3,900 Kms., its gear box started giving trouble and clutch release bearing started making undue noise. Sometime later the pressure plate also started giving trouble and that had to be got replaced.
3. At the time of purchase the complainant was posted at Allahabad. Respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 1 that the car had been opened three times for gear-box work and clutch but it continued to have the following defects which be got rectified from the Delhi dealer, respondent No. 4 :
“1. Gear box complete clutch overhauling,
2. One set gasket,
3. One set standard ring required as it is giving smoke.”
Respondent No. 3 further mentioned in that letter that due to non-adjustment of the tappets by the factory, problems had been created for the customers.
4. It is further pleaded that the car remained with respondent No. 4 for a period of approximately two months from 28.5.91 to 30.7.91, but they did not repair the car which was under warranty. However, the Regional Manager of respondent No. 1, at Delhi agreed to get it repaired. After the car had been repaired the axel of the car broke completely on 15.9.91. The car was got towed from a distance of about 20 Kms. to a mechanic at Gurgaon. It was got repaired from him by spending Rs. 4,000/-. ft is alleged that the complainant had to spend thousands of rupees on taxi fare. Still the car is not in a working condition. It is consequently prayed that the respondent be directed to refund Rs. 1,08,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization thereof and pay rupees two lacs as damages.
5. The complaint has been contested by the respondents. They have inter-alia pleaded that the Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. They have denied other allegations of the complainant and stated that many other cars have been sold by them and they are working in perfect order. The complainant suffered on account of bad driving, defect in fuel, non-servicing of the car, bad/defective roads etc.
6. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
7. In the written statement it is stated by the respondents that the transaction between the parties was subject to Bangalore jurisdiction and consequently the Commission at Bangalore had the jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The. respondent in the written statement, however, admitted that this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, but pleaded that in view of the agreement between the parties the jurisdiction of this Commission stands excluded. We have duly considered the argument. No part of the cause of action arose at Bangalore. Same question has been recently decided by us in Paras Mal v. M/s. Roshan Freight Carriers, II (1992) CPJ 830. It was held there in similar circumstances, that the Redressal Agencies of the place, where the head office of a Company was situated had no exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the circumstances we hold that this Commission has got the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
8. The next question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to the recovery of price, damages etc. and if so, how much amount it is entitled to recover. We recently decided a complaint against the respondents entitled Vikram Singh v. Sipani Automobiles Ltd. (Comp
