VINOD SHARMA Vs. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant, Shri Vinod Sharma against the order of the State Commission, dismissing the complaint.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a Contesa Car from the 2nd respondent on 28.12.1992. This car stopped during local running on 30.12.1992. On fault being reported to the 2nd respondent and after fitting it with a 'service' engine, the car was returned to the appellant on 31.12.1992. The car, once again stopped, it was repaired and certain parts replaced on 8.2.1993, complete cylinder Head Assembly of the car was replaced and after obtaining a 'satisfaction' report from the complainant, the car was given back to the complainant. In between on 25.1.1993 the complainant wrote to both the respondents, in effect, for change of car. A reply to the letter dated 29.1.1993 is on record, which speaks of some problem with the service engine fitted, change of electronic fuel pump and requesting the complainant to bear with them till the arrival of cylinder Head Assembly. Again a letter is written by the complainant to the 2nd respondent that the complainant is being given a repaired engine, which can hardly be considered a new car, to which a reply is sent by the respondents on 1.3.1993 that a new cylinder Head Assembly has been fitted to the complainant's satisfaction which he has given in writing. There is no cause of any further action. Not satisfied with the reply, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission praying for direction for replacement of the car with full accessories, payment of Rs. 35,900/- with interest i.e. the amount spent on air-conditioning, insurance and car stereo and Rs. 1.5 lakhs for mental harassment. The State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, it was argued by the leaned Counsel for the respondent that it is a fact that the car stopped almost immediately after purchase, but a service engine was fitted and the car ran on the new engine till on account of improper maintenance, the car again stopped, certain parts were repaired/replaced and the car started running again. It is important to note that this was a service engine on which no warranty existed. This has been done by the 2nd respondent, to help the appellant keep his car running. As soon as cylinder Head was received i.e. the first week of February, it was fitted alongwith the engine and since then the car has been running smoothly. It was also argued that in the terms of warranty it is clearly spelt out :