Ganpat Rai Hans Vs. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

J.B. Garg, President:

1. Ganpat Rai Hans, a resident of Sector 26, Chandigarh has alleged that in order to earn his livelihood, he purchased one Canter (a small size truck) from M/s. Pasco Motors, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, on 7.6.1995 on payment of Rs. 3,65,965/-. It is a product of Tata Engineering and Locomotives, Bombay. After about 13 months, its engine ceased in Rampur, Himachal Pradesh. The vehicle was taken to workshop of respondent No. 2 in the Industrial Area, Chandigarh, but the complainant was advised to get the faults repaired and for a few replacements referred to Krishna Auto Sales, Moga, a sister concern of respondent No. 2. The complainant carried the vehicle to Moga and was required to spend a sum of Rs. 3,500/- on transportation for this purpose. It has been alleged that the complainant was compelled to spend on the maintenance of the driver, etc. and had been suffering a loss of Rs. 14,000/- per month. In all the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- and future damages.

2. There is a reply in the form of an affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 3, wherein it has been averred that the complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. Besides this, it has been averred that the complainant is not a purchaser because he was in arrears of charges as a hirer and a sum of Rs. 50,382.57 was outstanding on 4.12.1986. It has further been averred that the complainant used spurious mico oil filter totally against the advice and did not follow the guidelines published in the Operations Book. The technical staff of the respondent found that the engine of the truck in question ceased because of the contractual violations as a consequence of the excessive wear and tear of the engine components and it was not covered under Clause 5 of the warranty. The approval for handling the vehicle in question was secured from Pune and it took time. The complainant himself did not collect the vehicle from Moga though it had become road-worthy in the month of September, 1996.

3. In this case the vehicle in question was purchased on 7.6.1995 and the complainant gave his address as a resident of G.T. Road, Moga at the time of its purchase. However, it appears that the complainant had been residing in Sector 9, Panchkula and in his own complaint he has given his address as if he is running Hans Trading Company, Sabzi Mandi, Sector 26, Chandigarh. One important plea taken on behalf of the respondents is that the vehicle was purchased and was utilised for commercial purpose. However, may be that the complainant is using this vehicle to earn his livelihood and might have been transporting vegetables, etc. from hilly are, of Himachal Pradesh to Chandigarh. We hold that complainant is a consumer.

4. The vehicle did give satisfactory service to the complainant for a period of one year and three/four months, thereafter there was a major defect and it ceased on 28.7.1996 while at Rampur in District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. During the course of arguments it has transpired that there was no Service Centre for repair of this vehicle at Chandigarh. On a suggestion made by the respondents the vehicle was taken to Moga i.e. the place where it was originally booked and it was repaired there. The respondents did not communicate any definite information regarding fitness of the vehicle for the purpose of delivery and the complainant moved this Commission on 1.10.1996 by means of the present complaint. It was at the fag end of the proceedings that the respondents brought the vehicle from Moga to Chandigarh but the complainant declined to accept it after such a long time. All this goes to show that there was of course an important defect and the vehicle ceased during the warranty period while at Rampur in Himachal Pradesh yet at the same time the complainant had utilised the vehicle for more than one year and three/four months for the purposes referred to above. The price paid by the complainant was Rs. 3,65,965/-. In this case it appears that the complainant had obtained loan for the purchase of said vehicle from the respondents themselves. After taking all these circumstances into consideration in this case respondents are ordered to refund 50% of the price paid by the complainant within a period of two months. In case the respondents fail to comply with this order they shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the institution of the complaint till realisation. The complainant declined to accept delivery of the vehicle when it was brought here and if the aforesaid payment is made the vehicle shall remain with the respondents. The complainant shall be responsible for its formal retransfer. The complaint stands disposed of.

Announced.