Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Smt. Golekar
Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Shah
Opponent No. 1 through Lrd. Adv. Singh
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(24/01/2014)
This complaint is filed by consumer against the dealer and manufacturer of the vehicle for deficiency in service in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows.
1] The complainant is a practicing advocate residing at Pune. He has purchased “Honda CRV” Car from the opponent no. 1 i.e. dealer of the car. According to the complainant, there was delay in the delivery of the car. The car was not kept in proper condition in the show room of the opponent no.1, even though the price of the car was Rs. 22 lacs and the bumper of the car was damaged at the time of delivery. It is further contended that the servicing of the car was not done properly at the time of second of servicing. On 15/8/2007, while complainant was proceeding to Kolhapur, the air conditioner of the car was not working properly. It has stopped functioning. The complainant had required to return Pune without air conditioner. On the next day, the car was sent to the workshop of the opponent no.1 but it was not returned immediately after repairs. Again on 22/8/2007, there was leakage in the part of air conditioner, due to which working of air conditioner was stopped. Again the vehicle was returned to the opponent no. 1 for attending problem. The opponent did not replace defective part. On 25/8/2007 while travelling to Mumbai again air conditioner was stopped functioning. Hence, the complainant had no option but to use the car without air conditioner and he had suffered lot of trouble. Again car was sent to the workshop of the opponent no. 1 on 28/8/2007. But it was remained with the opponent no. 1 till 10/9/2007 i.e. 12 days for the said repair because the spare parts were not available. It is also contended that the opponents have been charged excess amount of Rs. 3,500/- under the heading of miscellaneous expenses. But no explanation was given for the said amount. It is the case of the complainant that, all these instances are as regards deficiency in service and manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence, opponents no. 1 to 3 are liable to compensate. He claimed an amount of Rs. 1,001/- for deficiency in service, an amount of Rs. 1,001/- for mental agony and torture and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
2] The opponents have resisted the complaint by filing separate written versions. They have admitted that the complainant had purchased car, but they have denied that there are defects in the same and the opponent no. 1 had caused deficiency in service. It is flatly denied that the opponent wilfully did not provide proper services to the complainant. On the contrary, it is contended that, the opponent no. 1 had provided services whenever the car of the complainant was sent to him. According to the opponent no. 1, the problem of air conditioner was solved from time to time. As at present there is no defect in the vehicle, as well as there is no deficiency in service as alleged, the complaint is not maintainable.
According to opponent no. 2 and 3, there are no serious allegations made by the complainant against them. Most of the allegations are made against the opponent no. 1. They are not necessary party and there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the car was not inspected by any expert in order to establish manufacturing defect. All the opponents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the voluminous documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established deficiency in service? | In the affirmative against opponent no. 1 only. |
2. | Whether complainant has established manufacturing defect in the car? | In the negative. |
3. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
4] The undisputed facts in the present proceeding are that the complainant had purchased car from the opponent no. 1, which was manufactured by the opponent no. 2 and 3. The failure of air conditioner while using the car on the instances, which are quoted in the complaint are also not seriously disputed by the opponent no. 1. It is significant to note that, a consumer has dream to enjoy the brand new car, but when he come across defects in the car, this will certainly annoy to the consumer. In the present proceeding while complainant was proceeding to Kolhapur and Mumbai, there was failure of the air conditioner and that gave lot of trouble to the complainant. It is also pointed out that the car was withheld for 12 days for repairing in the workshop of the opponent no. 1 for want of spare parts. It is contended by the complainant that the opponent no. 1 did not bring spare parts well within time, hence he had suffered lot of inconvenience and that should be compensated, as that amounts to deficiency in service. The opponent no. 1 has no answer for those inconveniences suffered by the complainant. Hence, this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation on the ground of deficiency in service from the opponent no.1. The complainant is also entitled for Rs. 1000/- towards mental agony and torture. The complainant has claimed cost of the litigation of Rs. 25,000/-. That amount appears to be exorbitant. The complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.3,000/- by way of cost of the litigation.
5] As the complainant has not established that there is manufacturing defect in the car of the complainant, no compensation can be awarded from the opponent no. 2 and 3. In the result, this Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. It is hereby declared that the opponent
No. 1 has caused deficiency in service
3. The opponent No. 1 is hereby directed
to pay in all an amount of Rs. 5,000/-
(Rs.Five Thousand only) to the complainants
towards compensation for deficiency in
service, mental and physical sufferings
and cost of the litigation, within six
weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
4. Complaint stands dismissed against
Opponent no. 2 and 3.
5. Copies of this order be furnished to the
parties free of cost.
6. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 24/01/2014
