Customer sues motor vehicle agent demanding damages for defects

Tuesday, 25 April 2017 00:09 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

By S.S. Selvanayagam

The Commercial High Court has issued summons on Diesel and Motor Engineering Plc (DIMO), a well-known motor vehicle agent in Sri Lanka, calling for it to be present in court on 3 May 2017.

Plaintiff Minah Tea Exports Ltd. has purchased a brand new Mercedes Benz E-300 Blue Tec Hybrid motor vehicle from DIMO around December 2015 for Rs. 17.9 million.

However, the plaintiff alleged that from the outset the vehicle suffered several mechanical and electrical problems, which were all duly communicated to DIMO’s employees.

The plaintiff stated that the first such instance occurred around February 2016, when the vehicle had stalled completely after displaying wrong readings on the display panel, and on this occasion DIMO’s employees had taken delivery of the vehicle in order to implement remedial measures.

However, the plaintiff further states that about one week later DIMO returned the vehicle to the purchaser and said that it could not detect and diagnose a fault in the vehicle.

 Around March 2016, the vehicle had again abruptly stalled while being driven on the road after displaying incorrect readings, and on this occasion the plaintiff had been able to restart the vehicle after several attempts and upon communicating with DIMO’s employees for guidance. Then around July 2016, the motor vehicle once again stalled completely after displaying wrong readings, and on this occasion the vehicle had been transported by DIMO to its yard for diagnosis of the defect.

The plaintiff laments that it has been distressed over the continuous malfunctioning of the vehicle having paid DIMO a premium purchase price with the anticipation of having the benefit of a premium quality vehicle and having inevitably gone through direct and indirect losses due to the defects of the vehicle. It instituted action at the Commercial High Court of Colombo claiming Rs.27.9 million in damages.

The plaintiff was represented in court by its Attorney G.G. Arulpragasam. 

 

COMMENTS