ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, amended upto date (hereinafter referred as to “Act”) has been filed by Sh.Ranvik Mehta(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Complainant’) against Garyson Motors Pvt. Ltd, Main Threeke Road, Near Green City Gate, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager and others (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘OPs’) directing them to refund the amount of Rs.11,543/- and Rs.29,622/- alongwith interest @18% besides Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.70,000/- for the loss of work and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                 In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant owns and using one car model Fiat Punto Emotion, whose Registration Number is PB-05-R-9750. Op1 and OP2 is the Pvt Company and Ex-dealers of FIAT CARS, which sells and provide services for the cars manufactured by OP3 and OP4 under contract of dealership by them. OP3 is the international company having its corporate office at the above mentioned address and registered office at the address mentioned at OP4. The OP3 and OP4 manufactures and sale the cars through its dealers and branches in India. On 29/06/2013, complainant went to the service station of OP1, as to get the regular service and proper check up of his car. FIAT Cars having a joint Venture with TATA Motors in India And Garyson Motors is one of the Dealer of FIAT motors who was also selling and providing services to the FIAT cars. When the complainant visited the workshop of OP1 at their above mentioned address, the service advisor and manager of the workshop who dealt with the complainant, dealt with the complainant, assured him stating that they will give the satisfactory service as per the standards and service manual of FIAT cars and the service of the car will be done by trained mechanics of Fiat cars. Upon believing their assurances, the complainant gave all the details of the job to be done and problems occurring in the car. Some of the problems which the complainant specifically put in the notice of the service advisor of OP1 were mentioned herein below:-

1. Regular Service,
2. AC problem.
3. Ignition problem.
4. Engine Check
5. Regular Check up.
6. To put and change damaged parts like rear wiper, front left fog light.
7. Wheel Balancing and wheel alignment.
8. Front wiper checking etc.

 All the grievances were rightly put into the notice of the person dealing with the complainant and accordingly the concerned officials of OP1 mentioned the same in the job card. The manager and the mechanic of respondent no 1 assured the complainant, to give him the satisfactory above mentioned services and also assured him to repair the vehicle with full satisfaction and make it fit in all case by evening of the same day. While giving the car to them, it was specifically told to them that the complainant had come all the way from Ferozepur specifically for the service of the car and he has to go back on the same day. As per assurance of satisfactory work by the officials of Op1, the complainant gave the car to them and went to the workshop to take the delivery of the car in the evening of the same day, but the complainant was shocked to know that the work on his car has not been done and the manager asked for one day time to the complete job and for the delivery of the car. When the complainant raised concern over the matter saying earlier he has specifically told them about his coming from Ferozepur, on that the manager told the complainant that if the complainant need full satisfaction of the job and service on the car, he has to leave the car till Monday and further said that he will himself call the complainant by Monday afternoon and till then, the service of the car will be done. With no other way left and believing again on the assurance of the manager of OP1. But shockingly no call was received by the complainant on Monday from OP1 or from the workshop. Then the complainant called the manager of OP1 on Tuesday to inquire about the car, he again demanded one more day period so as to give the full satisfaction of the service on the car. On Wednesday, the complainant went to fetch the car, hoping for satisfactory job on his car in last 3 days . He was shocked and surprised, when the manager started giving excuses on the queries regarding the matter which is to be done during the service of the car. When he raised an issue regarding the same in the workshop, he was shocked to know that OP1 and OP2 are now not authorized by FIAT and now cannot perform any service on the FIAT Cars. So, legally they are not authorized to even touch the car or to even let the FIAT car enter the premises of Garyson motors. It further came in to the notice of the complainant, that Garyson motors neither have the required tools for Fiat Cars nor they have body parts of the Fiat cars, so as to give full service of the FIAT cars, on this, the manager and service advisor assured the complainant that they have managed all the parts required, the service and problems of the car has been done as per the complainant requirements and the same were resolved by the trained mechanics, so the complainant need not worry. The complainant then asked about the same to the manager of OP1 as to why he has not told the status of company before at the time of handling the car to them by the complainant , he dodges the question and left the premises by making an excuse. That when the complainant inquired about the car, staff of OP1 started demanding the payment before they will allow him to take the test drive of the car, so as to let the complainant check all the issues which need to be resolved, are resolved or not. Having no option left the complainant was forced to pay the billed amount, which itself was charged excessively being much above the estimated amount given at the time of opening the job card. Having come from so far and having no option left than to take his car back from them, the complainant paid the billed amount by cash and took the delivery of the car. The Garyson motors issued the bill in which they showed themselves to be authorized dealer of FIAT cars and also put their stamp on the servicer book of the car again depicting themselves, doing everything legally. On delivery, the complainant found the car apparently on OK condition from the outer view, however the specifically mentioned in the satisfaction card while leaving the premises after paying bill amount that all the concerns relating to ignition, Engine and AC etc will be checked one he will drive the car on road. When the complainant put the car on Road he was shocked that all the main issues and problems regarding which he was specifically charged and paid for them, are not resolved and are still in the same condition as it was when the complainant left the car with the respondent no. 1 on 29/06/2013. Specific issues like engine check warning light, AC cooling, Lights rear Wiper, Ignition problem are not checked though he was charged and made to pay for the same. Then again he went back to the workshop of OP1 but shockingly the manager and other service officials refused to entertain him. That on the way back to Ferozepur, the front wipers of car stopped working and the complainant narrowly escaped from a major accident. The complainant also found that all the issues and problems for which he gave his car for the service with the OP11, are now giving more problems and along with that the engine started making a strange sound. That being aggrieved by the defect and deficiency of services and utmost negligence in the services by the OP1 in performing notice and they had intentionally allowed OP1 and OP2 to cheat customers using their name. Even the OP3 and OP4 are vicariously liable for the acts of OP1 and OP2 and OP3 and OP4 are responsible to act on the grievances and complaints by the customers who are using their services but by not acting on the complaint and showing insensitive attitude towards the complaint they have committed defect and deficiency in services and by adopting illegal trade practices joins hand with OP1 and OP2 committed fraud on complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant also filed a criminal complaint in the concerned Police station of Ludhiana, where the investigation is still under process. During the initial inquiry on the complaint, concerned officials of Garyson motors were called and therein during the inquiry, they confessed their crime stating that legally they cannot conduct services of FIAT cars from March 2013 and further stated all has been done on the directions of the Owners of the Garyson motors PVT. Ltd. The complainant got shocked when it was put in to his notice that the oil used in the engine by Garyson motors is not the oil which the company recommends for Fiat Cars rather it is oil/lubricant which is used in TATA cars. It is also told by DADA motors service advisor that the oil used by Garyson motors in the engine has damaged the car engine and it has to be changed. Further it was told after checking of the car that many services which have been charged in the bill by Garyson motors have actually not been conducted by them but illegally charged by them. It was further told to the complainant that the alleged service by the Garyson motors is not showing in the service record of the car, which simply means that the service of the car has not been actually done.  It was further told to the complainant that Garyson Motors Ludhiana is cheating several innocent customers and there have been a lot of complaints against them regarding the same. The OP1 and OP2 have misrepresented and cheated in their duties towards the complainant despite charging hefty sum for the same. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notices of the complaint, Op1 and OP2 were duly served and appeared through their respective counsels and filed their written reply, whereas, notices of the complaint were sent to OP3 and OL4 through registered post on 6.1.2014, but the same were not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, OP3 and OP4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.6.2.2014 by this Forum.

4.                OP1 and OP2 filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The intricate question of law and fact is involved in the present case which cannot be decided summarily by this Forum. The complainant has leveled allegation of cheating, fraud which cannot be decided in the present proceedings. On merits, it is submitted that it was told to the complainant that M/s Garyson Motors  Pvt. Ltd. is now not authorized dealer of FIAT company and as such they will not be able to do the service. However at the request of the complainant, the job card was prepared and the service of the car was done. The car was ready on 01.07.2013 and it was informed to the complainant that he can collect the car but the complainant did not turn up for taking his car, but he has come forward to take the car on 03.07.2013. He has carried out the road test and after fully satisfying to the service of the car he had paid the bill amount. All the problems whatsoever were duly rectified. Further, it is submitted that the complainant was told that he can collect the car at any time before 2:30 pm on 01.07.2013. It is denied that as per assurance of satisfactory work by the officials of the answering OP, the complainant gave the car to them and went to the workshop to take the delivery of the car in the evening of the same day as alleged. It is denied that the work has not been done as alleged. It is further denied that the complainant raised the concern over the matter as alleged. The entire allegations are wrong and denied. The complainant has coined cock and bull story.  It is submitted that the car was accepted for service on the persistent requests made by the complainant. Though, it was told to the complainant that M/s Garyson Motors  is now no more dealer of FIAT. It is denied that when the complainant enquired about the car, staff of the answering OP started demanding the payment before they will allow him to take the test drive of the car. So, as to let the complainant, check all the issues which are need to be resolved or not as alleged. Rather, it is submitted that the complainant was completely satisfied with the condition and working of the car. It is denied that wipers stopped working or that the complainant narrowly escaped from major accident as alleged. It is denied that it was told by Dada Motors that the oil used by Garyson Motors have damaged the car. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to support his claim, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA/1, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.

6.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 and OP2 adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajinder Singh, its General Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OP1 and OP2 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Op1 and OP2 has proved on record the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned proxy counsel for the OP1 and OP2.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has filed the written arguments, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and also referred the documents produced by the complainant in his evidence and it has been further submitted that the employees of OP1 and OP2 firstly delayed the delivery of the car for one reason or the other and then gave the delivery of the car on 3.7.2013. The complainant was forced to pay the bill before he can leave the premises with his car. The fact of the same also mentioned in the satisfactory note which the OP produced in evidence. An separate application dated 11.6.2014 was also filed by the complainant to produce the documents relied by them in original, as the satisfactory note dated 3.7.2013 relied by them is fabricated, tempered and if the Ops are made to produce to document in original, the whole story of the complainant will automatically proved. The malafide of the OP1 and OP2 is seen from the fact that in order to conduct cheating, they intentionally put the right number of the car in the bill and the other stats of the car like Chassis No, insurance number was wrongly mentioned of some other car. The chassis Number and insurance name mentioned in the bill issued was not of the car of the complainant. The same was done as every car comes with a different chassis number and if they have put the right number, the computer server would have sent the data to Tata Motors and their cheating would have been caught. It has been admitted by OP1 and OP2 that they were not authorized to deal with the FIAT cars on the date of service of the car of the complainant. From where, they got the equipments and parts which were allegedly used and put in the car as shown in the bill. At the end, made prayer for the relief as claimed for.

9.                Learned proxy counsel for the Op1 and OP2 has contended that it is proved on record that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as there are allegations of cheating and fraud which needs an elaborate evidence and the said allegations cannot be decided in the present proceedings and only Civil Court is competent to decide the said allegations of cheating and fraud. Further, it was told to the complainant that M/s Garyson Motors  Pvt. Ltd. is now not authorized dealer of FIAT company and as such they will not be able to do the service. However, at the request of the complainant, the job card was prepared and the service of the car was done. The car was ready on 01.07.2013 and it was informed to the complainant that he can collect the car but the complainant did not turn up for taking the delivery of his car, but he had come forward to take the car on 03.07.2013. The repair of the car of the complainant was carried out at the instruction of the complainant and the payment was made after the repair.

10.              We have gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also considered the rival contention of learned proxy counsel for the OP1 and OP2 and have also perused the record on the file very carefully.

11.              Perusal of the record reveals that there are specific allegations of the complainant that OP1 and OP2 had lost their dealership with the FIAT India. However, OP1 and OP2 were working as claiming themselves to be the dealer of FIAt India and further there are allegations that since Garyson Motors is not authorized on behalf of FIAT India and they have cheated the complainant by using the name and logo of FIAT Company and the complainant has claimed the refund of Rs.41,165/- which he had paid on account of repair of the vehicle in question.

12.              Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CA/1, in which, he has also deposed on the similar averments as made in the complaint and further, he has deposed in the para no.14 of his affidavit that feeling aggrieved, the complainant had also filed a criminal complaint in the concerned Police station of Ludhiana, where the investigation is still under process. During the initial inquiry on the complaint, concerned officials of Garyson motors were called and therein during the inquiry, they confessed their crime stating that legally they cannot conduct services of FIAT cars from March 2013 and further stated all has been done on the directions of the Owners of the Garyson Motors PVT. Ltd. The complainant has also placed no record copy of legal notice Ex.C6 and copy of letter Ex.C8, vide which, it has also been mentioned that through the present notice, he called upon the Ops to put into their notice that his client is initiating a criminal action against their company for cheating, criminal intimidation, fraud and other relevant criminal prosecution.

13.              So, it appears from the evidence as well as contents of the complaint that there are allegations of cheating and fraud involved in the present proceedings and it is a well settled principle of law that in order to record the findings qua the questions/issues of cheating and fraud, an elaborate evidence is required and it needs a full trial by providing the opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence by way of examination and cross-examination of their witnesses which is not possible in the summary proceedings and same can only be possible before the Civil Courts. So, complaint does not appear to be maintainable before this Forum due to the lack of jurisdiction.

14.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being not maintainable before this Forum due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Courts or before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

                             (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                               Member                       President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.12.2014

Gurpreet Sharma.

Ranvik Mehta vs. Garyson Motors Pvt. Ltd.

26.12.2014

Present:-     Sh. Kartikey Swaroop Mehta, Adv for the complainant.

                   Sh.Mashkoor Ahmed, Adv, proxy for OP1 the OP2.

                   OP3 and OP4 ex-parte.

                   Written arguments on behalf of OP1 and OP2 not filed. Oral arguments have been heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room, after due completion.

                   (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                       President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.12.2014