Full Judgment
B.N. Sinha, President:
1. The complainant has filed this case for the replacement of his Premium Padmini-Deluxe BU Car which the complainant had purchased from the opposite party No. 2 and for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- from the opposite party.
2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly stated. The complainant purchased a Premier Padmini Deluxe BU car from the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 1,26,609.88 for which Receipt No. 1875 dated 22.6.90 was given to the complainant by the opposite party No. 2 who happens to be the dealer of the car at Jamshedpur. Opposite party No. 1 is the wholeseller of the car. Subsequently the car developed the following defects :
1. The right hand side door was of a different model than that of the car.
2. The body of the car was of a poor workmanship, bad finishing and the assemblies were of poor and cheap quality.
3. The differential was not having oil.
3. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 several times and the opposite party attended the car but in vain, as the car supplied to him was defective. Thereafter the complainant also corresponded with opposite party No. 1 for replacement of the car, but in vain. Hence the complainant filed this case before this Commission.
4. On being noticed both the opposite parties appeared and filed written version. Opposite party No. 1 in his written version has challenged the maintainability of the case alleging inter alia that the complainant had purchased the car on 30.6.90 through opposite party No. 2 and during the warranty period of one year the car was attended by the opposite party No. 2 and the defects were removed to the satisfaction of the complainant whenever the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and that the certificate to that effect was given by the complainant on 29th of October, 1992. It is further averred on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that the car was attended by the opposite party No. 2 even after warranty period from time to time when the complainant approached for repairs and rectifications and the case has been filed by the complainant for the replacement of the car after the lapse of two years from the date of purchase of the car to make unlawful gain from the opposite parties.
5. The opposite party No. 2 in their written statement has averred that the case has been filed with mala fide intention to get free service to his car even after the lapse of warranty period. It has been averred that the car was purchased on 30-6-90 and at the time of taking the delivery of the car no defect was alleged by the complainant; that the warranty period of the car expired on 30-6-90 during which period as per Clause No. 1 and 2 of the terms and warranty and owners service policy the Company warrant to repair or replace any of the part of the car free of cost; that whenever the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 for repairs during the warranty period and even after that it was attended by them and even after filing of this case the complainant after his car repaired and he issued certificate dated 20.10.92 that the car has been repaired upto his satisfaction and that he had no complaint in respect of his car and therefore he is withdrawing this case.
6. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party admitting that he certified in writing on 29.10.92 that defects in the car have been rectified to his satisfaction and he has no more complaints in respect of his car and he is withdrawing this case; but he has averred inter alia that certificate was given by him because the opposite party No. 2 simultaneously gave letter to their sub-dealer M/s. Ranchi Automobiles, Ranchi for attending to the damaged caused to the car by hammering its roof and to cover the damage the car had been painted for taking satisfaction certificate from the complainant. The complainant also filed a petition to this effect on 16.11.92 informing this Commission that under the aforesaid circumstances he is withdrawing his certificate dated 29.10.92 and he does not want to withdraw the case.
7. On the prayer made by the opposite party No. 1 Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ranchi was asked to examine the car and send hi s report. The car was examined by him on 7.2.94 and he has submitted his report dated 4.3.94 to this Commission informing that no mechanical defect was found in the car. He has stated in his report that he did not find any defect complained about by the complainant. The report further mentions that complainant complained that the rest pad of the doors in the car were of old model. The opposite party No. 2 in his written version has denied this allegation. The M.V.I, has not recorded his finding with regard thereto and he has mentioned in his report that if the complainant was not satisfied with those rest pads, he may get them replaced by new ones.
8. There is no material on the record to indicate that the car had manufacturing defect. The report of the M.V.I, shows that there was no mechanical defect. It will be very hard on the manufacturers to replace the vehicle or refund its price even if some defects â not manufacturing defects appear in the car. We are fortified in our view by the observations made by the National Commission in the case of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and Anr. v. M. Moosa, (1994) 2 CTJ 1046 (CP) (NCDRE). There is no complaint of negligence or deficiency in Service during the warranty period.
9. Under the circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is dismissed.
10. Tine complainant is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost of the opposite party.
Complaint dismissed with costs.