Complainant Smt.Vijay Chopra has filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.7300/-, illegally charged by the opposite party no.1 and to pay Rs.93,836/-, illegally charged by the opposite party no.2. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is that she is resident of Pathankot and purchased Ford Fiesta 1.4 Car from opposite party no.2 A.B.Motors for a consideration of Rs.6,85,149/-. The said vehicle was insured with Future Generali India Insurance Co./opposite party no.3 for a period from 18.12.2012 to 17.12.2013. The Registration no. of car is PB-35-P-2345. Its warranty was given for two years as per company policy. She has further pleaded that on 24.5.2013 the Chamber of the said car was hit with the stone and it was taken to the Bhagat Ford. The car was repaired and the amount of Rs.7300/- charged by the opposite party no.1. After sometimes the voice come from the engine and her husband took the vehicle to the opposite party no.1 and told them about the problem in the Engine, but they told that engine is OK and nothing to worry. That on 12.7.2013, when he alongwith her family was coming back from Ludhiana and when they reached near outskirts of Jalandhar, the problem occurred in the engine and he took the car to opposite party no.2 and during checking the Foreman of opposite party no.2 told that the engine has been ceased and it requires repair of engine. She does not know the technicalities of the car as the engine of the car is under warranty. As such she requested the opposite parties to repair it or to change the vehicle as the engine problem is material one. She has next pleaded that at that time, the opposite parties assured her to remove the defect which is under warranty or to change the car. To her utter surprise, the opposite party no.2 made the approximate costs of the said vehicle as Rs.92,500/- and requested her to deposit 50% of the said amount. She requested the opposite party no.2 and other authorized customer service to repair their car without any charges as it is under warranty and even sent many mails in this regard but the opposite parties refused to repair the engine without charges. As such the opposite party forced the complainant to pay the amount and refused to repair the car which is under warranty. The amount of Rs.93,836/- has been paid to the opposite party no.2 and after that the delivery of car has been given to her. Her husband is District Attorney, Gurdaspur and the opposite parties harassed him mentally. Thus there is deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, deserves to be dismissed against the opposite parties alongwith special costs of Rs.10,000/- U/S 26 of the C.P.Act; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands  and suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. Actually the repair work which the complainant had got done from the opposite party dated 24.05.2013 as well as 12.7.2013 were accidental repair and both the accidents were separate one. On 24.05.2013 when the vehicle was brought by the complainant for accidental repair, the opposite party no.1 had replaced the articles as mentioned in the bill dated 27.05.2013 duly manufactured by opposite party no.4. The articles/parts would not damage until and unless those spare part would not dashed/badly hit by a solid surface. At the time of replacement of these spare parts, there was no manufacturing defect in them. After driving the vehicle around 3000 K.M. on 12.07.2013 when the complainant brought the vehicle at the premises of opposite party no.2, the pan assembly engine oil, tube assembly oil pump, support engine front and cat., Convertor were damaged and as per the complainant the vehicle met with an accident on the way. After checking the vehicle, the estimate repair cost was informed to the complainant around Rs.1,40,000/-, as the vehicle was insured with the opposite party no.3, they appointed the surveyor and after conducting the survey, the total repair cost of the vehicle was Rs.1,35,977/-, out of which the opposite party no.3 had only approved a bill of Rs.50,987/- after deducting the depreciation amount, the insurance company had paid an amount of Rs.42,141/- on 10.8.2013. The remaining amount of the repair work was Rs.93,836/- which the complainant supposed to pay and he made the payment vide four separate receipts dated 10.08.2013.At the time of taking of the delivery of the vehicle on 10.08.2013, the only grievance of the complainant was that his vehicle was not repaired under warranty. Although the contract of warranty is between the manufacturer i.e opposite party no.4 and the customer i.e. the complainant, but as the articles which were replaced were damaged due to the negligent driving of the complainant of the vehicle after accident which was not approved by the insurance company as such the repair work was not under the warranty and the complainant has to bear the cost, which was rightly raised by opposite party no.2 for rendering their best services. Even then the complainant had dragged the opposite parties in the present litigation. As such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed against the opposite parties.  On merits, it was submitted that the car was not hit with a stone on 24.5.2013. In the present case nobody has been arrayed as opposite party no.5. Although, the complainant has got his vehicle repaired on 24.03.2013 which was caused due to accident and paid the amount. It was incorrect that the complainant feels harassed and entitle for compensation for harassment. On the contrary, it is the complainant who is harassing the opposite parties by misusing the position of her husband who is a District Attorney at Gurdaspur, had illegally dragged the opposite parties in the present litigation without any cause of action for which the complainant should be penalized as per the law. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Upon notice opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint of the complainant is not legally maintainable; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Actually, the claim has been filed by the complainant and in the claim form it has been alleged that due to rainy water in the pit on the road, the vehicle of the complainant hit due to the pit. After that the engine of the complainant seized. In this case, it has been found that the loss has been occurred as the engine oil was not available in the engine, due to non-availability of Engine oil, engine got overheat and warning signal was blinking continuously in instrumental panel of the car. But due to ignoring of the warning signal, the complainant used the car due to which piston generated higher friction and heat in cylinder and got struck due to disorder of cylinder wall. So, this fact clearly shows that the complainant is negligent and failed to take the reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from the loss or damage. So, the claim has been settled on 17.8.2014 for parts damaged due to external impact for a sum of Rs.42,154/- (NEFT in the name of AB Motors) as per assessment of surveyor and the complainant has given full and final discharge of his claim and the complaint of the complainant is not within limitation. On merits, it was submitted that as already stated there is fault of the complainant and due to his negligence the problem occurred, due to which there is no liability of the insurance company over and above what is paid as it is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In the event of any accident or break down, the vehicle shall not be left unattended without proper precautions being taken to prevent further damage or loss and if the vehicle be driven before the necessary repairs are affected and any extension of the damage or any further damage to the vehicle shall be entirely at the insured’s own risk. So, the claim has been settled on 17.8.2014 for parts damaged due to external impact for a sum of Rs.42,154/- (NEFT in the name of AB Motors) as per assessment of surveyor and the complainant has given full and final discharge of his claim. The signal shown in the car means to stop the vehicle and not to start the engine. At the time of buying car the service book and instructions manual has been duly provided to the customers to pre-understanding the basic tips to use the vehicle. In present case the complainant has ignored all these manufacturer instructions and driven the vehicle which caused further mechanical failure. So, there is no liability of the insurance company over and above what is paid and accepted by the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

5.     Upon notice, opposite party no.4 appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement taking the preliminary objections that Ford India Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, a global automotive industry leader. Ford India manufactures and distributes automobiles and engines made at its modern integrated manufacturing facilities at Maraimalai Nagar, Near Chennai; the complaint is false and frivolous as the same has been filed with ulterior motive to harass and defame the opposite party. The complaint is an after thought and the complainant is deliberately trying to distort the facts of the case to suit his own convenience in order to mislead the Hon’ble Forum. The complaint not maintainable before this Hon’ble Forum and is liable to be dismissed at its threshold. On merits, it was submitted that the relationship between OP4 and the dealership is purely on a principal to principal basis and each party is responsible for its own actions and omissions. The complainant never had any direct dealing with OP4. The said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 who is one of the several authorized dealers of OP4. It is only in case of any manufacturing defects that OP4 is required to meet its obligation as per the standard prescribed. It was further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the opposite party and the complainant, therefore, any grievance with respect to deficiency in service or otherwise, unless the same is a manufacturing defect, can only be made against the dealer and not the opposite party. The vehicle in question was booked by the complainant with OP2 and not with OP4. The OP4 sells the car to OP2 with in turn sells the car to the end consumer based on their own independent marketing initiative. Since the opposite party is only a manufacturer of the vehicle in question and shares a principal to principal basis relationship with the Dealer, there is no relationship whatsoever between the opposite party and the complainant and thus the complainant is not a direct consumer qua the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed, in the interest of justice.

6.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.J.K.Chopra Ex.C1 and of Vijay Chopra Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C24 and closed the evidence. 

7.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasbir Singh Manager Ex.OP-1,2/1 alongwith other document Ex.OP1,2/2  and closed the evidence.

8.       Sh.Abhilash Chander, Deputy Manager, Legal Claims tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/8 and closed the evidence.

9.      Counsel for the opposite party no.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tapos Kumar Moitra Ex.OP4/1, alongwith other document Ex.OP4/2 and closed the evidednce.

10.        We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence and it’s supporting documents as available on the records of the proceedings while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the complainants’ insured Car first got struck/ hit by a stone from underneath at Pathankot and was taken to the OP1 authorized Ford workshop at Pathankot for necessary repairs and further to the OP2 authorized Ford Point at Jalandhar when it could not be fully/ satisfactorily repaired (and set in full working order) at the OP1 workshop. Thus, the District Consumer Forum, Gurdaspur rightly holds the territorial jurisdiction over the present complaint. Further, the Car in question was comprehensively insured with the OP3 insurers (through the OP2 dealer/vendor) for cashless conduct of repairs in case of need. However, the complainant was charged (and made to pay) Rs.7,300/- Ex.C16 on 27.05.2013 by the OP1 workshop and again Rs.1,35,977/- on 10.08.2013 Ex.OP1&2 /2 by the OP2 workshop for the conduct of the full accidental repairs. Somehow, the OP3 insurers passed (and paid) the insurance claim for Rs.42,154/- only alleging that major damages were caused through the mishandling of the Car by the complainant but could not produce any cogent evidence in support of their allegation. It is not understood as to how the OP insurers’ Surveyor/Loss Assessor could evaluate the accidental damages to the Car at Rs.42,154/- only when its own associates OP1 (Rs.7,300/-) and OP 2 (Rs.1,35,977/-) had charged Rs.1.43 Lac to repair that damages and all the more when the Car had been insured for cash-less repairs and no cogent evidence could ever be produced to support the allegation self-caused damage (to the Car) by the complainant’s mishandling etc. We find the OP1 & OP2 dealers (Vendor workshops) & the OP3 insurers involved in ‘unfair trade practices’ and hold them liable to an adverse award under the Act.           

11.    In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties (of course to the exclusion of the OP4 Manufacturers) to refund/pay back the repair charges in full as received from the complainant for the impugned accidental repairs  in terms of the related insurance Policy besides to pay her Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the full aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actually paid.

 12.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After due Compliance, file be consigned to records. 

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                 President.                                                                                        

ANNOUNCED:                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

August 27, 2015                                                               Member.

*MK*