BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.379 of 2023
Date of Instt. 21.09.2023
Date of Decision: 20.03.2024
Ved Pal s/o Sh. Inder Raj resident of VPO Jubbal, Tehsil Jagadhari, Distt. Yamunanagar-135133.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Ford India (P) Ltd., 5th Floor, Plot No.142, Chimes 142, Sector 44, Gurugram-122003. Through its Managing Director/Director.
2. M/s A. B. Motors (P) Ltd. (Bhagat Ford), Opposite Delhi Public School, Jalandhar-Phagwara Highway, Jalandhar. Through its Managing Director/Director.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
Jyotsna (Member)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle, Make FORD, Model FIGO-ASPIRE, bearing registration No.HR 92 9456 and the OP No.1 is its manufacturer and after sales service provider and the OP No.2 is one of the authorized sales and service partner/dealer of the OP No.1. The complainant on 09-05-2023 had approached the OP No.2 i.e. M/s Bhagat Ford, being the authorized dealer/service partner of the OP No.1 to get his car serviced as well as get it repaired as the vehicle/car of the complainant suffered a minor accident in which the rear bumper and tail gate of the car of complainant got damaged. The complainant was assured by the OP No.2 that the necessary repair will be completed in a span of 4-5 days only. The car insurance policy of vehicle of the complainant was to expire on 24-05-2023 so the OP No.2 advised the complainant to handover the car on 10- 05-2023 inspite of the fact that 10-05-2023 was a holiday due to General elections in Jalandhar, but the OP No.2 told the complainant that they will send some of their employee on 10.05.2023 who will be present in the service centre to take the car. Accordingly, the complainant and his son went to the service centre on 10.05.2023 and handed over the vehicle to the OP No.2 on 10.05.2023 to carry out the required servicing and body repair. The servicing of the vehicle was completed on 12-05-2023 and the complainant transferred the servicing cost viz.Rs.3,784/- to the OP No.2 and was informed that the vehicle will be sent to body-shop to carry out the required body repair of the vehicle. Thereafter on 22-05-2023, the complainant was informed that the insurance survey had been got conducted and the repair will be completed within 2-3 days and the vehicle will be delivered to the complainant within 2-3 days. But after 3-4 days when the complainant contacted the OP No.2, he was informed that the repairs will take at least 2 days more and again after 2 days the complainant got the same response and was told that due to unavailability of parts, there had been delay in carrying out the required repairs but the repair was not done and whenever the complainant or his son tried to telephonically contact Sh. Vishal Nanda, Service and Body Shop Manager of OP No.2, to ascertain the status of repair of vehicle/car, he ignored their calls and use to handover his phone to someone else. On 07-06-2023 оr 08-06-2023, the complainant was in New Delhi when he received a call that his car had been repaired and he can take the delivery of the car. When the complainant went to take the delivery of the car and was about to make payment, his son, Sh. Mohit Kumar, who was usually dealing with the employees of OP No.2 in getting the repairs done, observed that the brand logo ‘FORD’ which was affixed on front bumper was missing and when he opened the bonnet it was discovered that the OP No.2 had changed the front bumper of vehicle/car of the complainant in an unauthorized manner as the same never required any repair and it was also found that the OP No.2 had removed the rubber of wiper blade. The bumper which was affixed was a used and damaged bumper. When the son of the complainant objected to it, the employees of the OP No.2 had bluntly refused that they have changed the front bumper. The complainant then contacted the customer care of OP No.1 who deputed their Regional Manager and at the intervention instance of the Regional Manager, the employees of Complainant No.2 agreed and apologized and the complainant was told that the damaged bumper will be replaced by the OPs at their own cost and the car will be handed over within 3-4 days. After 4 days as promised, the complainant approached the OP No.2 to get the delivery of his car/vehicle but was told that a day or more is required to complete the repairs and each day thereafter the complainant used to make calls to ascertain status of repair and every time one or the other excuse was made by the staff of the opposite party No.2 till 08-07-2023 when at last the vehicle/car was handed over to the complainant and the complainant made the payment of Rs.20,304/- By changing the front bumper of the car/vehicle of the complainant in an unauthorized manner and also not disclosing the same to the complainant Client and by retaining the car for such a long period of 58 days the OPs are, jointly as well as severally, responsible for rendering deficiency in services to the complainant and are also responsible for causing undue mental agony harassment to the complainant and due to their illegal wrongdoing, the complainant was forced to remain without car for 58 days which made him suffer further harassment and inconvenience for which the complainant is entitled to be suitably compensated. The complainant got served legal notice dated 17.07.2023 upon the OPs but to no effect and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for causing mental harassment. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.87,000/- on account of inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to unwarranted retention of his car/vehicle for 58 days. Further, OPs be directed to Rs.22,000/- as the charges/cost of litigation and to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the total amount to which the complainant is entitled.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, but despite service both the OPs failed to appear and ultimately both the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant has produced on the file his respective evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant wherein it is alleged that the complainant had approached OP No.2 being authorized dealer of OP No.1 to get the car serviced and repaired. The complainant had suffered a minor accident in which the rear bumper and tail gate of the car got damaged. The OP No.2 promised to the complainant that the necessary repair will be completed within 4-5 days. On 10.05.2023, the complainant and his son went to the service centre and handed over the car to the OP No.2 for service and repair. The service of the car was completed on 12.05.2023 and servicing cost of Rs.3784/- was paid by the complainant. Thereafter, the car was sent for repair and to body shop to carry out the body repair by the OP and final bill was prepared on 08.07.2023. As per complaint, the complainant received a telephonic call on 07.06.2023/08.06.2023 from the OP that the car had been repaired and he can take the delivery. When complainant visited the OPs to take the delivery of the car, he found that front bumper of the vehicle was changed and brand logo ‘FORD’, which was affixed on front bumper, was missing and it was also found that the OP No.2 had removed the rubber of wiper blade. Photographs Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 are attached in the complaint. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of OP No.1 and due to their intervention, OP No.2 apologized and agreed to replace the bumper. Thereafter, the OP No.2 delayed the repair on one pretext or another and ultimately, handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 08.07.2023. Bill is Ex.C-6. The acts of delaying the repair, removing the rubber without the consent of the complainant, is unfair trade practice. The complainant has suffered harassment.
6. On the other hand, the OPs have not come to contest the case. So, the version of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un- challenged, even then the same is required to glance very deeply. The allegation of the complainant is supported by his own affidavit Ex.CA and supported documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, it is clear that there is a delay of 58 days to repair the vehicle. This is clear cut case of deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint of the complainant as exparte partly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.03.2024 Member Member President
