Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased one Hind Ambassador 1500 Diesel Grand Card (Private) from the op no.2 the dealer of op no.1 and op no.1 is the manufacturer of the car purchased by the complainant and that was purchased on 30.03.2012 on payment of Rs.4,44,571/- and after purchase when he was using and run the same suddenly a major defects were detected and complainant immediately sent the car to the op’s Service Centre.  After servicing the car delivered the car stating that the said car was okey.  But again on the road it was found that it was not properly running and not fit for moving and thereafter complainant contacted with the service centre who inspected the car and told that some parts are required to be changed and they charged Rs.2,959/- for such repairing and complainant paid with a hope that the said car would be defect free one. 

          But inspite of such repairing the car was not running or moving and so complainant asked the ops for replacement the said paid nothing had been done on the part of the servicing centre and so he took back the car from them in Sept. 2012.  After purchasing the car practically complainant suffered a lot as the newly said purchased car is defective car because of problem, disturbances and harassment to the complainant and accordingly complainant requested the op to replace the said defective car and provide a defect free one in place of the present defective car.  But they did not take any such step and did not give any relief and for which complainant is compelled to appear before this Forum for proper relief and for compensation for harassment and also for adopting such unfair trade practice by the op.

          On the other hand, op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant purchased the vehicle in question.  But it was purchased from op no.2 and he is aware of the fact that op no.2 always attended the complainant with utmost care and satisfaction of the complainant on every occasion of his complaint and on different dates i.e. on 08.02.2012, 13.02.2012, 21.03.2012, 18.05.2012, 22.05.2012, 30.05.2012 & 11.06.2012 the car was placed for servicing and it was done and problem was resolved and complainant received the same on all occasion with satisfaction.  But it is specifically stated by the op no.1 that there was no manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant and said vehicle was purchased on 30.03.2012 and travelled about 1457 KM by 11.06.2012 signifying smooth running of the vehicle which are evident from the job cards.

          So, it is proved that the vehicle was not defective one and further from the job card it is found that vehicle was serviced properly to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant whenever the vehicle was brought to the service bay of the dealer.  So, the ops are not responsible or liable for any deficiency of service whatsoever.  It is further submitted that the service was given as per warranty and no money was charged for such services from the complainant and service was done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant but vehicle was used by the complainant harshly resulting in replacement some parts and repair was serviced by the op with utmost care and skill.  Further op no.1 is not liable and complainant is not the consumer of op no.1 but of op no.2.  So, the complaint should be dismissed and denied all allegations.

          Whereas op no.2 Austin Distributor Private Limited by filing written statement submitted that the complainant never purchased Ambassador Car from the op no.2 because op no.2 is the dealer of op no.1 and op no.2 is not manufacturer of any car and he never issued any warranty but warranty is of the op no.1 and in the Invoice it is specifically mentioned that the vehicle is supplied subject to normal warranty given by the manufacturer and no warranty or gurrantee other than that given by the manufacturer shall be stipulated as applicable to this purchase.

          Further op no.2 has submitted that complainant has made some false allegations and without any reason and further fact is that against op no.2 there is no allegation.  Though 11.06.2012 complainant received the car for servicing in working condition and he has also admitted that and took back the same from op no.2 on Sept-2012 but other allegations are false because in all respect service centre gave service without any harassment and if there is any defect that shall be cured by the manufacturer and also submitted that the complainant is completely vexatious.

                                              Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version including in the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, we have gathered that no doubt it is admitted fact that complainant purchased one car from the op no.2 and op no.1 is the manufacturer who gave warranty.  But it was placed for service on 18.05.2012, 22.05.2012, 30.05.2012, 11.06.2012 and on other dates and fact remains within warranty period service was given and as per complaint of the complainant door was adjusted, brake was adjusted, head light was adjusted and front door, left door was adjusted and Fan belt was torn 4 times that was also adjusted, new belt was given, change of oil filter as per rule and nut-bolt were checked up and tighten and there was a complaint that the car was found over heated that was also checked up and that matter was cleared.  But complainant’s allegation is that even after servicing the car is not moving on the street as it is found over heated etc. 

          Practically after considering the delivery challan it is found that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and complainant received it on 26.03.2012 after signing.  Thereafter, the complainant no doubt within service warranty period placed it for servicing and for some problems and problems were removed no doubt because in each occasion complainant received back it by signing on the job cards and from the job cards it is found that complainant on 04.01.2012  paid Rs.4,715/- for Flag Stand, steering cover, front guard, fog light, door guard, switch/wire fitting and one set of mud flap which was purchased by the complainant from Auto Emporium.

          So, from that receipt it is found that it was not purchased for removing any defect and same was purchased.  But even then we have gathered that on every occasion complainant went there with allegation that the car was being over heated.  But it is found that date of sale of the car is on 26.03.2012 and during warranty period he got all services.  But after considering the job cards it is found that no where there is any specific observation or any report of the technical expert of the Hindusthan Motors.

          Further from the last receipt dated 11.06.2012 it is found that customer received the same without any objection and practically on that occasion also there was no technical expert report of the Hindusthan Motors’ manufacturer that the car is defect free.  So, considering that fact it is clear that service centre of the op no.2 did not act properly because it is the duty of the seller (op no.2) to always attend the purchaser of car to satisfy him in all respect that the car is defect free and the said certificate must be submitted by the manufacturer’s technical expert.  But that was not till handed over to the complainant by the op no.2.  But truth is that op no.2 attended on all respect in all cases or instances but never submitted any defect free certificate granted by the technical expert and engineers of the Hindusthan Motors and fact remains after purchase one after another occasion he went up to Sept-2012 and since his purchase is on 30.03.2012 i.e. within 6 months but he did not get any defect free certificate from the manufacturer either at the time of purchase from the op or the last occasion on in the month of Sept-2012.

          So, it is clear that the car had not been properly checked as per complaint of the complainant in any occasion and in this regard op no.1 or 2 have failed to produce any such certificate after proper checking and inspection of the vehicle by the technical experts of the op no.1 through op no.2.  So, invariably we are also not satisfied about the written version of the ops that the car is defect free because it is mandatory for the dealer to handover a certificate of the engineers of the manufacturer of the car to the seller to the effect that car sold is defect free at the time of purchase but that has not been supplied and further when the complainant made certain allegations about the non-functioning of the car properly and over heating of the car even then op no.2 did not take any such step to place the same before the manufacturer for technical experts opinion whether there was any defect or not.  So, we are satisfied that op nos. 1 & 2 did not act properly and did not supply as yet any defect free certificate issued by the engineers of Auto Mobile technical experts of the op no.1.  So, we find that ops did not properly render services to the complainant and in the above situation we are convinced that op nos. 1 & 2 and particularly op no.2 failed to produce any defect free certificate issued by the manufacturer before this Forum.

          So, we are convinced that op nos. 1 & 2 particularly op no.2 did not properly render service and also did not hand over any such certificate of the op no.1 regarding its defect free status of the vehicle and for which we are inclined to hold that there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of op no.2 in variably.

          In this case Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that complainant failed to produce any expert opinion to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the said car.  But we have gathered that question will arise if op no.2 is able to produce any such certificate of the manufacturer (op no.1) in support of such vehicle that the car was sold to the complainant with such certificate that it was defect free and okey issued by the op no.1 along with the car to the op no.2 and at the time of purchase by the complainant and that is not produced by the op no.2 then invariably the ruling reported in II 210 CPJ (NC) and II 2005 CPJ 72 (NC) are not applicable and those rulings are applicable when dealer is able to produce such certificate that at the time of sale dealer supplied that fit certificate of the particular vehicle along with warranty card to the purchaser.

          But in this case complainant has failed to produce any such certificate.  So, there is deficiency in service and no doubt the op no.2 acted illegally and it is unfair trade practice. 

          In the result, the complaint succeeds against ops.

          Hence, it is

                                                     ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 and the op no.2 with cost of Rs.10,000/- the dealer who sold the car to the complainant.

          Op no.2 is directed to receive the car from the house of the complainant at his own cost and inspect and check it by the op no.1’s technical experts board and handed over a fit certificate of op no.1 and in all respect make the vehicle free from all defects and for proper use and that shall be done within one month from the date of this order if any part is required same shall be changed and that shall be changed by the op no.2 without taking any further cost because within the warranty period that had not been done and for which op no.1 shall have to supply all those defective parts and op nos. 1 & 2 cannot charge for change of those parts or any check when it was within warranty period and in this regard we have relied upon one ruling reported in 2013 (3) CPR 119 (HP) that means no charge can be charged for repairing or making the present car free from any defect and road able and if it is not done by the op no.2 within one month in that case op no.2 shall have to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-  to the complainant within 15 days after expiry of the above one month for making the car a defect free and for handing over the defect free certificate issued by the technical experts of the op no.1 and in this regard op no.1 shall invariably compensate with the op no.2.  But it is the responsibility of op no.2 to comply the order very strictly.

          Considering the unfair trade practice of the op no.2 regarding handing over the defect free certificate of the car at the time of the purchase of the vehicle to the complainant, the op no.2 is imposed punitive damages to the extent of Rs.25,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and that shall be deposited to this Forum within one month from the date of this order.

          If ops fail to comply the order of this Forum and if it is found that op nos. 1 & 2 are reluctant to comply this order in that case for each day’s delay op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay penalty interest @ Rs. 250/- each per day till full satisfaction of the decree and a even penal proceeding shall be started against them for which they shall be liable.