STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

                                                APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2010

Smt. Anupama Tyagi w/o Oliver Tyagi R/o House No.5973, Duplex Modern Housing Complex Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                            ….Appellant.

                                                Versus

1.      Fiat India Automobiles Limited, B19, Ranjangaon, MIDC, Industrial Area, Ranjagoan, Taluka Shirur, Distt. Pune.

2.      Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase No.2, Chandigarh.

3.      Mr. Dinesh Chawla, DGM (Works), Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase No.2, Chandigarh.

4.      Mr. Sartaj, DGM (Sales),  Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase No.2, Chandigarh.

                                                                                                            ….Respondents.

BEFORE:             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Present:             Sh. Oliver Tyagi, Husband of appellant (complainant) in person.

                        Sh. Ramesh  Kumar Bamal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 & 4.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                    This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 27.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1356 of 2008 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed.

                        Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 2.2.09 he purchased a Fiat Linea Emotion Pk SEDAN RHD 1370 CC Petrol Engine car from OP No.2 after paying full and final payment of Rs.7,03,027/-. After few days of the purchase of the said car, the complainant noticed certain defects in the car such as door trims on the driver side had not been properly fixed and were looking old and shabby without chrome plating. It was alleged that one door of driver side was not closing properly and the central locking was not working properly; buttons of the CD changer and other control panels were also not working properly besides the engine belt was also making unusual notice. It was averred by the complainant that she contacted OPs for rectifying the said defects but they flatly refused to do so. As per the complainant on 30.7.2009 in the monsoon season, she was shocked to see black spots on the driver side door, which proved that the car purchased by the complainant was repainted. On this, the complainant approached OP No.3 to replace the door but to no avail. The case of the complainant is that from the day one of its purchase, she is facing one problem or the other. Alleging the act of OPs in selling an accidental/repainted car to her as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant had filed the present complaint before the learned District Forum.

                        The version of OP No.1 is that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant after thorough inspection and it was hard to believe that the complainant took about six months to notice the defects. It was next stated that all these defects might had occurred due to the mishandling and rough use of the vehicle by the complainant. OP No.1 further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the warranty, the claim of the complainant for replacement of the vehicle was not covered.  It was also submitted by OPs No.2 and 4 that the vehicle in question came at the workshop for the first time on 6.5.09 for first free service and no problem was sorted as mentioned in the job card. It was stated that on 14.5.09, the door weather strip was replaced and on 17.7.09, the AC switches, controls etc. were repaired. As per OPs No.2 to 4, on all the occasions, the vehicle was attended in most efficient and effective manner under the conditions of warranty. In support of its pleadings, OP No.3 has also filed an affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Chawla, Manager Works. Rest of the defects in the vehicle had been specifically denied by the OPs. Pleading no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                        The learned District Forum in its analysis of the complaint has recorded in the impugned order that the repaint could not be said to be a manufacturing defect and it could be done by the owner of the car at any time. As per the learned District Forum, if there was any complaint of repaint, it should had been made by the complainant immediately or within a reasonable period of purchase of the vehicle. As such, the learned District Forum do not find any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect as regards this grouse of the complainant. As regards the grouse of the complainant relating to defect in the tyre of the vehicle, the learned District Forum observed that the preponderance of evidence goes against the complainant because if there had been any such defect in the car, she could had flatly refused to purchase the same at the time of purchase. Thus, in the view of learned District Forum, this ground had been falsely coined by the complainant without any basis. It was observed in the impugned order that the complainant had not been able to suggest any other defect in the vehicle much less a manufacturing defect. Finding no merit in the complaint, the learned District Forum dismissed the same.

                        Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order and awarding relief as prayed for in her complaint. Sh. Oliver Tyagi, Husband of the appellant (complainant) appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Sh. Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate appeared for respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

                        We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

                        Sh. Oliver Tyagi while arguing the matter pointed out that the report dated 1.10.2009 of Verma Motors has not been appreciated by the learned District Forum while passing the impugned order and had the said report been taken into consideration by the learned District Forum, the matter would have been different.

                        At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the report dated 1.10.2009 of one Verma Motors, filed by the complainant, it is apparent that the right side front door of the car has been repainted. Keeping in view the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this report placed on record by the complainant cannot be fully relied upon for adjudicating upon the matter. Now the questions before us for consideration are firstly to decide the matter, whether the door of the car in question is repainted? and secondly, if so, whether it was already repainted by the OPs before its purchase or it was got repainted by the complainant after its purchase? We are of the considered view that an independent expert opinion in the field should have been obtained to ascertain these facts. Thus, the order passed by learned District Forum in the absence of any such expert opinion, is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, we allow the appeal and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the complaint case is remanded back to the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh to decide it a fresh on merits after obtaining expert opinion in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 21.9.2010.

                        Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

26^th  August, 2010.

 [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                           MEMBER

Ad/-

                                                APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2010

Present:             Sh. Oliver Tyagi, Husband of appellant (complainant) in person.

                        Sh. Ramesh  Kumar Bamal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                        Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 & 4.

                                       -.-

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been allowed.

26.8.2010                                           (PRESIDENT)                         (MEMBER)