(i)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12,
2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) r/w 2(1)(i) and 14(1)(d) - Complaint
about defects in car - Car purchased by company
for use by its directors - Whether for commercial
purpose? (No) – Whether Complainant is a consumer?
(Yes). (Para 10)
(ii) Manufacturing defects in car - Not removed
after several servicings - Whether car be replaced?
(No) - Whether compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- be
allowed? (Yes). (See Para 13)
Result: Complaint allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Car purchased by a company for use by its Directors
is not for commercial purpose. The company is a
consumer.
ORDER
JD Kapoor, President - Complainant
is a company incorporated under the Companies Act.
It purchased CIELO (GL) passenger car with A/C,
A/T, W/CC model manufactured by OP No.1 through
OP No.2 vide invoice No. 04010623 dated 5.1.1996
bearing registration No. DL5C B 0814 for Rs. 4,74,410
for the use and operation by its directors including
Complainant No.2.
|
|
|
2. |
It
is alleged by the Complainant that from the very
beginning the aforesaid car has been giving a lot
of trouble. After every 10-15 days, it stopped working,
as a result of which the Complainants and their
executives were stranded on road. The reason for
the same was manufacturing defects, which could
not be set right though frequently the car was sent
for repairs. After a few days of taking the delivery
of the car, the following defects were noticed in
the car:
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Missing
& jerking on starting acceleration and while running;
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Car
stalls on pick-up;
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
Paint
chipping off;
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
Rattling
on the front left side;
|
|
|
|
(v) |
First
gear was hard and slipping;
|
|
|
|
(vi) |
Brake
noisy;
|
|
|
|
(vii) |
Glove
box not shutting from the left side;
|
|
|
|
(viii) |
Whole
left side of dash board rattling;
|
|
|
|
(ix) |
Moulding
on left door keeps coming off;
|
|
|
|
(x) |
Wheels
start to wobble if the car manages to cross 70 km
per hour; and
|
|
|
|
(xi) |
Door
rattling.
|
|
|
3. |
After
the return of the car from the workshop of the OPs,
it was noticed that despite sending the car at least
10 times till July 1996, almost all the defects
as stated above were existing and could not be rectified.
It continued to break down on roads during its use
by the Complainants and its executives. On numerous
occasions, the directors of Complainant No.1 narrowly
escaped accidents when the car suddenly stopped
on crowded roads. There was no response to the telephonic
and verbal requests made by the Complainants for
replacing the car. The OPs instead of doing the
needful suggested that the Complainants should add
additive every time despite the fact that the car
was being filled with unleaded fuel. On 10.9.1996,
J L Gulati representative of the Complainant No.1
was called for taking the delivery of the car. After
taking the delivery of the car from the workshop
of the OPs on 10.9.1996, there was no improvement
in the same. The car was taken for trial run as
suggested by the OPs on 13.11 .1996 though the OPs
failed to provide suitable replacement as agreed
to by them. The car was delivered back on 15.11.96.
The OPs failed to replace the car and on their failure
to replace the same they also failed to refund the
amount paid to the OPs and further expenses incurred
by the Complainants.
|
|
|
4. |
On
account of the manufacturing defects in the said
car, the Complainant could not use the car properly
and has through this complaint claimed expenses
of Rs. 70,000 towards its repairs and compensation
of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 11,000 towards cost of proceedings.
|
|
|
5. |
The
complaint was resisted mainly on the following counts:
|
|
|
|
(i) |
The
complainants are not consumer as defined under Section
2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as the company
purchased the car for commercial purpose.
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
The
complaint had been filed after the expiry of the
warranty period and, therefore, is not maintainable.
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
The
said car was purchased on 15.1.1996 and till 16.7.1996
the said car had been driven for 12321 kms (which
is more than 2000 kms per month i.e. almost 67 kms
a day). That in case the alleged defects really
existed in the said car, it could not have been
driven for more than 2000 kms per month.
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
That
the said car was first brought to the OP No. 2 for
the first free service to be done at 1000 kms. A
perusal of the Job Card (Annexure-f) dated 13.2.1996
would highlight that none of the complaints, which
are now being alleged, were made. The said car was
duly delivered to the complete satisfaction of the
Complainant No. 1/its driver.
|
|
|
|
(v) |
In
the month of March'96, the Complainants approached
both the OPs and requested them to exchange the
said car (which was with Manual Transmission) with
a CIELO Car with Automatic transmission, on the
payment of the difference in the two models. The
Complainants were informed that this was not possible
as the said car had been used for almost two months
and the OPs were not into the business of buying
and selling second-hand cars.
|
|
|
|
(vi) |
Vide
letter-dated 15.11.1996, the OP No.1 had categorically
informed the Complainant No.1 that as and when the
engine stops and car breaks down, immediately contact
the Helpline on the Mobile Numbers given.
|
|
|
6. |
The
aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the car
manufactured and sold by the OPs was not free from
defects and this is demonstrated by various job
cards as well as series of letters that were exchanged
between the parties. No consumer in ordinary circumstances
would take up the matter with manufacturers or the
sellers of the vehicle so vigorously that he would
take the vehicle time and again to the garage and
would go on writing complaints after complaints
about the occasional breakdown of the car on the
way.
|
|
|
7. |
It
was with the object to inculcate quality and purity
and high standard in the goods and articles like
the vehicles that the word 'defect' was defined
by Section 2(1)(f) as under:
"(f) 'defect' means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming
in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard
which is required to maintained by or under any
law for the time being in force or [under any contract,
express or implied or] as claimed by the trade in
any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods."
|
|
|
8. |
In
modern day busy life, no person has time and money
to take a brand new car time and again to the garage
to get the defects rectified. It is only under compulsion
and continuous problems the vehicle gives that he
resorts to such acts.
|
|
|
9. |
Even
if we accept the stand taken by the OPs to be correct,
still the fact remains that the vehicle was taken
to the garage for removing defects on more than
5-10 occasions within short duration of few months
and still the defects were not rectified. Instant
complaint was filed by the Complainant before this
Commission as the Complainant's grievances were
not being redressed.
|
|
|
10. |
Contention
that Complainants are not consumer within the meaning
of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act is without any substance
as the vehicle was purchased not for further sale
to earn profit but for personal use, be that for
the use of directors of the Company.
|
|
|
11. |
In
the instant case, Complainants have successfully
proved that the expenses incurred for removal of
various defects in the car amounted to Rs. 70,000.
|
|
|
12. |
The
car was purchased about 10 years back and has been
used by the OPs grudgingly and reluctantly and also
at a great inconvenience. In such circumstances,
the direction to replace the car by a new car is
not feasible but the Complainants are, in our view,
entitled to compensation for the loss or injury
suffered by them on account of having been sold
a defective vehicle.
|
|
|
13. |
As
the result, we allow the complaint by awarding compensation
of Rs. 1,00,000 which shall include the expenses
incurred on the removal of the defects in the car
and the compensation as to the mental agony and
harassment suffered by the complainants and the
cost of filing the instant complaint.
|
|
|
14. |
Complaint
is disposed of in above terms.
|
