Unfair trade practice and misrepresentation of product by the manufacturer and dealer led to the court's decision to direct the refund of the purchase price with interest and award compensation for mental pain and loss suffered by the complainant.

Mr. K. Balakrishnan, Member—The facts of the case are as follows:

The first opposite party is the manufacturer of the car named “Montana” Diesel. Inspired by the qualities and specialities advertised by the manufacturer of the car “Montana”, the father of the complainant, late Shri Ayyappan Pillai contacted 3rd opposite party, the authorised dealer of the 1st opposite party in Kochi and applied for the purchase of a car on 17.4.1989 in the form No. 53751. Along with the application, he paid Rs. 10,000 for the booking of the car by D.D. drawn on UCO Bank. He got the priority booking card No. 018-8-00089.

2. On 20.4.1990, the third opposite party in their letter informed late Ayyappan Pillai about the allotment of the car and asked him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,06,650 on or before 20.5.1990 The payment should be made as follows (1) Rs.1,02,650 by D.D. in favour of 1st opposite party and Rs. 4,000 in favour of 3rd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant made the payment and got acknowledgement. The complainant raised these money through Bank loans.

3. On 22.5.1990, the complainant Ayyappan Pillai expired and his legal heirs authorised his son A. Balachandran to take delivery of the car. Then the complainant got telex message from the 3rd Opposite Party to take delivery of the car. So the complainant went to take delivery of the car along with a mechanic.

4. On inspection of the car, the complainant noticed certain serious defects. The most serious thing is the car was mounted with an engine locally manufactured, namely ‘Java’ instead of Diesel engine Mitsubishi K3 as published in their hand book by the first opposite party. The whole body of the car was vibrating and making noise. The battery was found not suitable. The engine produced much noise with too much smoke. Nothing all these serious defects, did not take delivery of the car from the 3rd opposite party. The compainant demanded refund of the price of the car with interest.

5. The complainant gave these details in writing in a letter dated 4.10.1990 and also to the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party acknowledged the letter on 21.1.1991 that is after 3 months. But in spite of reminders, the opposite parties did not take any steps to refund the amount with interest. From their attitude it is clear that they are taking unfair trade practice and as a result the complainant suffered loss and mental agony.

6. The respondent’s advocate appeared and had not much to say against the contentions raised by the complainant’s advocate. The main points he pointed out are that the interest rate and compensation amount claimed for mental agony are very high. So to reduce the same.

7. The complainant examined his witnesses and marked documents Ext. P-l to P19.

8. Now after hearing the arguments of both parties and going through the records, we have no hesitation in holding that the opposite parties have committed grave unfair trade practice in advertising the sale of Montana diesel Car with a diesel engine of Japanese collaboration, but actually selling it with a diesel engine of local manufacture. So we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is allowed with cost of Rs. 2500 with a direction to refund Rs. 1,16,650 with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of payment (19.5.1990) to the day of refund and Rs. 25000 towards compensation for mental pain, loss suffered by the complainant.

Complaint allowed.

–––