BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.34 of 2015

Date of Instt. 05.02.2015

Date of Decision :04.09.2015

Rajeev Kumar Kapoor son of Keshav Dev resident of WG-387, Neevan Suraj Ganj, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. General Manager, Kosmo Auto Mobiles, Opp.Delhi Public School, GT Road, Jalandhar.

2. General Manager, Registered Office, Kosmo Auto Mobiles, Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu-602117.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Gagandeep Singh Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Grand i10 Sportz 1.2, LMV Car bearing Chasis No.073259, Engine No.227506, colour white on 7.4.2014 for proper consideration available in the showroom, from the opposite parties at their showroom, situated opposite to Delhi Public School, GT Road, Jalandhar, alongwith all the facilities embedded with the car & available to the customer. Because, the car in question was within the guarantee/warranty period provided by the opposite parties to the complainant at the time of purchase of the car. So, the complainant hired/availed the services of workshop of opposite party No.1 for rectification of mechanical defects of the car. At the time of purchase of above said car by the complainant and its release from the showroom, it was assured by the opposite parties and more specifically opposite party No.1 that the piece of the car in question has been properly checked & its all parts and facilities embedded with the car including the Air Conditioner, are working properly. On the assurance and shown responsibilities of the opposite parties and more specifically opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased and carry with him above said car. Within a week from its release, the AC of the car started giving troubles. The AC of the car was not working in a proper way. In other words, due to some inherent mechanical and other defects in the AC of the car, it started giving its cooling to the directions where cooling was not desired/required. As well as, started giving cooling, where it was actually desired/required. Otherwise also, the cooling itself was also not proper. The complainant did not complain in this regard to the opposite party, thinking that it will be alright with the passage of time. But such thinking of the complainant proved futile and the AC remained uncontrolled and unsuccessful. Ultimately on 23.6.2014, the complainant approached the showroom/workshop of opposite party No.1. Although, the mechanics of the workshop tired to check the fault in the AC of the car. But the mechanic did not succeed to rectify the same and released the car from workshop with false assurance that now in future the AC of the car will not give any trouble. But as usual, the defect of the AC of the car was not rectified from the mechanics of the workshop of the opposite party No.1. So, the AC remained giving trouble, as it was giving earlier. Resultantly, the complainant was to approach showroom/workshop for the purpose of amelioration of his trouble, being given by the improper working of AC of this car. As a result of which, the complainant was to approach to the office and workshop of opposite party No.1 on 24.9.2014, 28.10.2014, 17.11.2014 and 22.12.2014. But the defect of the AC of the car remained unimproved and remained giving the same trouble, as it was giving earlier. Not only this, the mechanics of the opposite parties were not even successful to rectify even the nob of the AC, which also was not working properly. Under the circumstances the complainant was very upset due to above said negligent service and depreciation of value of the vehicle done by the mechanics of the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to replace the AC of the car with new AC, as well as, ameliorate the inner position of the car including its dashboard, as it has been all due to release of defective vehicle, as well as, due to providing negligent and improper services. But the opposite party straightway refused to accept even the genuine request of the complainant. Rather the opposite party No.1 started openly saying that above said is not their fault. Because the complainant purchased the above said car from opposite party No.1 with consideration and have also hired the services for rectification of defect of the AC of the car more specifically from the opposite party No.1, situated at Jalandhar. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the AC of the car with brand new AC and further its dashboard and renovate the inner of the car. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared but only opposite party No.1 filed a written reply pleading that there is no manufacturing defect in the car in question. The complainant with his own will purchased the car after being satisfied with the performance of the car. The car was purchased by the complainant as the same was in perfect condition. Whenever the complainant brought the car in question for due service the service was done to the satisfaction of the complainant. There is no inherent and mechanical defect in the AC of the car in question. There is no defect in the AC. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not file any written reply inspite of number of opportunities afforded to it for this purpose and as such it was debarred from filing any written reply vide order dated 20.5.2015.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

7. The complainant has not alleged any defect in the engine of the car. According to him, the AC of the car was not working properly as it was not giving proper cooling and further it was not giving cooling in the directions in which same was desired. Counsel for the complainant contended that despite repeated visits, the opposite party No.1 failed to rectify the defect and rather destroyed the fitting of the dashboard as well as inner of the car. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has produced certificate Ex.C1 given by Deol Auto Electric Works wherein it is mentioned that there are manufacturing defect in the car and air direction not changing from feet space side and also its wind screen and further air fleece in high quantity which is damaging the body of a person. In this certificate, it is further mentioned that due to non changing the air direction, there used to be fog on the front mirror and driving of the vehicle is not possible. Further as per this certificate, the blower rotation motor is defective and AC Flaps are deed and the locks have been broken due to earlier repairs done and front dashboard is damaged. From this certificate at the most it can be concluded that there is defect in the AC of the car and not any manufacturing defect in the engine of the car. Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of the car as a party. The complainant has also placed on record email Ex.C2 wherein it is mentioned as under:-

"Customer Complaint:-This is to inform you that we have been receiving the i10 grand vehicle amoung(number) of time for same concern that "air direction not change from foot space side" also air fleece in high quantity also compared with other new vehicle but found in excess quantity.

Analysis:- air direction switch rectified in proper shape remove all extra displacements between switch and wire modem. Also refit new blower forum but problem same as it request kindly support with us what we can do further for like same concern".

8. The complainant has also placed on record invoice Ex.C7 wherein there is endorsement that ending jobs fault not dignose. He has also placed repair order Ex.C8 wherein it is mentioned that AC direction nob not working. Again in repair order Ex.C10 AC directions nob not working/noise from the rear is mentioned. So from all these documents, it is evident that there is some defect in the AC of the car. The present complaint was filed within warranty period. So opposite parties are bound to rectify the defects in the AC of the car or any other defect in the dashboard during the warranty period.

9. Consequently, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to rectify the defect in the AC of the car of the complainant and further in dashboard, if any and in case the defect in the AC of the car can not be rectified by repair or replacing the defective part then to replace the AC of the car with new one. The complainant is granted Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made within one month. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

04.09.2015 Member Member President