Complainant Balbir Singh Manhas has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P. Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to replace the engine of the complainant's car with the genuine one and  claimed Rs.2,04,695/- which was wrongly and illegally charged by opposite party no.1 by mishandling the car in dispute and Rs.2 Lac as damages/compensation for illegal harassment and mental agony including Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses in the interest of justice and also prayed for any other relief which this Ld. Forum may deem it.

2.       That the complainant had purchased a brand new car 'Vento 1.6 CR MT- Trend Line' bearing registration No.PB-07AJ-6141 in December, 2012 from opposite parties. On 21.10.2017 complainant while going from Pathankot to Chandigarh in this car faced a problem of heating coil blinking on dash board. He contacted Sh.Hem Raj Manager of opposite party No.1 who advised him to bring the car to the service centre after returning from Chandigarh. On 23.10.2017 complainant took his car to opposite party No.1 for repairs as advised by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 on checking the car advised him for repair of turbo of the car by purchasing it from Jaco refurbrisher's. On 31.08.2014 turbo of the car was replaced and Rs.34,000/- was charged for the turbo and its service/labour charges. On taking the trial of the car after turbo replacement problem was not resolved as the light on dash board was blinking. Opposite party No.1 the advised him that EGR system of the car was faulty and it was not the fault of the turbo for the light blinking. Opposite party No.1 had arranged EGR system of the car on their own from Jagdeep Ex-mechanic of Volkswagen from Hoshiarpur for Rs.30,000/- which was paid by the complainant on 06.11.2017. EGR of the said car was replaced and fitted by opposite party No.1 but even after the replacement of EGR the defect was not removed. Opposite party No.1 advised complainant to replace ESU (Electronic Unit of the Car) costing Rs.1,50,000/-. That on 14.11.2017 complainant contacted opposite party No.1 regarding status of the car and was told by opposite party No.1 that the engine of the car had seized during mechanical checkup. That on 15.11.2017 opposite party No.1 dismantled the engine of the car and reassembled the same after repair and Rs.1,28,576/- were charged for the same. Complainant took the delivery of the car on 27.12.2017 and on 29.12.2017 same signal of blinking of the red light appeared on the dash board. On 01.01.2018 complainant took his car to opposite party No.1 for its checkup and repair and again on 06.01.2018 when complainant was told by opposite party No.1 that the accelerator of the car is defective and advised replacement of same. On 23.01.2018 complainant was told that there was defect in the Control Module Unit (CMU) of the car. On 24.01.2018 this CMU was replaced by opposite party No.1 by charging Rs.3499/-. Thus, complainant had paid more than Rs.2,04,695/- but opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the defect. Even though different engine parts had been replaced by opposite party No.1 but defect was not removed. The car in dispute was returned to the complainant by blanking the signal of the blinking light on the display panel of the card temporarily with the help of software.

3.       On 19.02.2018 the same blinking of the red light appeared and opposite party No.1 advised him to get the car checked form opposite party No.3 at Chandigarh. On inspection of the car by opposite party No.3 they found EGR of the car defective and advised the complainant to replace it with genuine one as the pump of the EGR fitted by opposite party No.1 is not genuine one. This fact of the faulty EGR was brought to the notice of Manager of opposite party No.1. Finally, having no option complainant got genuine EGR replaced from his own pocket on 14.03.2018 and paid Rs.55709/- to opposite party No.3 for the same. Thus, a total of Rs.2,60,404/- were spend on the car for removing the defect by the complainant. Besides this, complainant was also deprived of the uses of the car by opposite party No.1 for over two months from 23.10.2017 to 24.01.2018 and 19.02.2018 to 14.03.2018. Opposite party No.3 also corrected the leakage of the engine oil of the car which was due to rough handing of the engine at service centre of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 had unnecessarily got the EGR pump of the car replaced with non genuine one which had led to seizure of the engine and other such complications. Complainant in support of his version has placed on file his self attested affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and also filed his written arguments.

4.       Upon notice opposite party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed his written reply stating therein that complainant is owner of 'Vento 1.6 CR MT' car since 20.12.2012. The complainant did not get his vehicle serviced as per the advise of the opposite party No.2 i.e. after every 15,000/- Km. Complainant had got his car repaired for physical damaged to the body on 29.04.2014. As per Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3. First service was from Volkswagen Hoshiarpur on 14.12.2013 with meter reading of 16372 Km. Second time complainant got his car serviced from opposite party No.1 with meter reading of 1,18,000 Km. Job orders and satisfaction notes are placed on file as Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-9. Opposite party No.1 that on 23.09.2017 the blinking of the light was diagnosed and turbo of the engine was faulty. Turbo was purchased from Jaco company and replaced by authorized engineer of the Jaco company. EGR of the car was replaced for Rs.30,000/- which was arranged from Jagdeep an  Ex-mechanic of Volkswagen.

5.       Engine Seizure was not due to fault of opposite party No.1 but due to use of inferior quality filter and lubricating oil. Regarding EGR complainant did not buy one from the authorized workshop of the Volkswagen as he felt that the price of EGR charged by workshop of the higher side. During overhauling of the engine by opposite party No.1 mud (Dust) was mixed with the engine oil because of non genuine engine oil uses. Opposite party No.1 denied that on 23.01.2018 complainant was told that there is defect in the control module unit (CMU) of the car and the same was replaced by opposite party No.1 on 24.01.2018 by charging Rs.3499/-. It is denied that complainant was advised by opposite party No.1 to get his car checked from opposite party No.3. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied by opposite party No.1. In support of their version opposite party No.1 has placed on file affidavit of Col. Anirudh Uttam (Retd.) G.M. of CPL Car Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to E.OP-23 and also filed written arguments and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.       Upon notice opposite party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed his written reply regarding the warranty of the car which was of two years duration from the date of purchase. Complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion regarding the defect of the car. It is further contended that opposite party No.1 is an erstwhile dealer of opposite party No2 and ceased to be dealer w.e.f.10.02.2019. Other averments of the complaint have been denied. Opposite party No.2 also placed on file affidavit of Umesh V. Khadpe Chief Manager Legal Ex.OP-2/1 with copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP-2/12 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

7.       Opposite party No.3 also appeared through their counsel and filed written reply stating therein that they recommended replacement of EGR which was done by opposite party No.3 by charging Rs.55709/- for the same. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Opposite party No.3 has placed on file affidavit of Varinder Kumar EDP Ex.OPW/3 in support of their version. But they failed to appear at the time of final arguments.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the parties, oral arguments advanced by its respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.        Complainant Balbir Singh Manhas was using the car 'Vento 1.6 CR MT-Trend Line' purchased in December, 2012 from Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh, opposite party No.3 in the present case. That on 21.10.2017 while driving the car the complainant observed that a heating coil light started glowing on the dash board. When complainant contacted Mr.Hem Raj Manager of CPL Pathankot i.e. opposite party No.1 in the present case he was advised to bring his car to the service centre at Pathankot i.e. the premises of opposite party No.1. On 23.10.2017 complainant handed over the car to opposite party No.1 as per the advise for replacement of turbo of the car, which was the cause of heating coil sign on the dash board. The turbo of the car was changed by opposite party No.1 and Rs.34,000/- were charged for its replacement. During road trial of the car immediately after replacement the same problem was existing in the car. Opposite party No.1 then told the complainant that there is fault in the EGR system of the car and recommended changing of the EGR. On 6.11.2017 EGR was changed by one mechanic arranged by the opposite party No.1 and Rs.30,000/- were charged for the same. But the fault persisted and opposite party No.1 then recommended replacement of ESU of the car costing Rs.1,50,000/-. On 14.11.2017 complainant was told by opposite party No.1 that the engine of the car had seized during the mechanical checking/repair of the car within the premises of opposite party No.1. On 15.11.2017 opposite party No.1 dismantled the engine of the car and charged Rs.1,28,576/- for to set the engine right. Complainant took his car on 27.12.2017 after making payment and assurance of opposite party No.1 that the car was OK. But on 29.12.2017 the fault persisted. On 01.01.2018 complainant took his car to the premises of opposite party No.1 for repair/rectification and on 06.01.2018 opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that there is defect in the accellator of the car. On 23.01.2018 the complainant was told that there is defect in the CMU of the car. On 24.01.2018 opposite party No.1 changed the CMU of the car with new one and charged Rs.3499/- for the same. Thus, total of Rs.204695/- was spent by the complainant for repairs on the advised of opposite party No.1. Again on 19.02.2018 the car was got checked from authorized service centre of Volkswagen car and they recommended changing of EGR of the car and Rs.55709/- was spent by the complainant for its replacement.

10.     Counsel for the opposite party No.1 also heard but he has failed to prove his version and he has miserably failed to rebut the contentions of the complainant by way of cogent evidence and opposite party No.1 also miserably failed to diagnose the exact cause i.e. glowing of heating coil on the dash board. Complainant was made to suffer by opposite party No.1for his hit and trial method of locating the exact cause and as a result complainant not only spent Rs.204695/- for its repair on four different occasions but also had a seized engine of car, which entailed an additional expenditure of Rs.95,200/- for to set it right. Thus complainant was made to suffer physical and mental harassment for no fault of his and had to waste a lot of time because of unprofessional approach of opposite party No.1.

11.      From the above discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 have miserably failed in rectifying the fault and are hence directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,99,695/- to the complainant alongwith 6% P.A. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- jointly on account physical and mental harassment and also Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within a period 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

12.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.                                         

 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                  President.                         

ANNOUNCED:                                  (R.S.Sukhija)

OCT. 27, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.