Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Harjinder Singh Chahal,  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased  I-10 car from Opposite Party No.2 being the agent of Opposite Party No.1 having RC No.PB-02-CL-5577, having warranty for two years and the said warranty is to be executed through Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is a ‘consumer’ as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.   In the said vehicle, some defects arose around second week of November, 2015 which are also insured by the insurance company including the denting painting work and replacement of one window glass, there was also the defect in the music system Kenwood which is originally being fitted by the Opposite Parties and the warranty for the said is to be executed by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties conducted the denting painting work and charge of the window glass in a very callous manner and it took more than five days in changing the window glass by the Opposite Parties and the complainant remained without his car for so many days, but the complaint of the music system was not rectified by the Opposite Parties inspite of having the same under the warranty. The complainant was directed to music system dealer to get it rectified and when the complainant went to music system dealer it transpired that the music system warranty is to be provided by the Opposite Parties and moreover the problem in the said product was due to faulty wiring system of the car which was not checked by the Opposite Parties which may result into big mishap. The Opposite Parties candidly admitted their fault and rectified the electric wiring system after two days of running from pillar to post by  the complainant. Said facts about the faulty system of electrical wiring of the car was brought to the notice of the executive of the Opposite Parties Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, his attitude was very hostile towards the complainant and he used the foul language against  the complainant for which the complainant had made the written complaint, but to no effect. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in harassing the complainant and  not rectifying the defect in the vehicle of the complainant in a timely manner and further using foul language with the complainant is an acts of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.       Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to pay the complainant of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

b)      Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel, but written version not filed despite of lapse of more than 45 days, hence the Opposite Party No.1 has forfeited the right to file written version. Opposite Party No.2 also appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Opposite Party No.2 denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the  extent it is expressly admitted therein. The complainant is not consumer towards the present dispute in question. No service regarding repair of music system of vehicle of the complainant was done by the replying Opposite Party nor such repair work was ever assigned/ complained by the complainant to the replying Opposite Party. As per the warranty norms provided by the Opposite Party No.1 to its customers, warranty is not applicable on tyres, music system etc. fitted in the vehicle which is being manufactured by other company and the respective manufacturing company is responsible  for the  warranty and repair of such goods. In the present case, the complainant has brought his vehicle to the service centre of the replying Opposite Party for denting and painting work and accordingly job card of dated 2.11.2016 was issued to the complainant and as per advice and instructions of the complainant denting and painting work was done by the replying Opposite Party and accordingly denting and painting work was done by the replying Opposite Party and invoice dated 9.11.2015 was issued by  replying Opposite Party and the complainant has paid the invoice charges and without any objection and complaint, the complainant has taken back the delivery of the vehicle and after passage of about one year, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has not reported about the repair work of music system and said work was not done by the replying Opposite Party as the same  has to be done by the manufacturing company of the music system fitted in the car of the complainant by the Opposite Party No.1, as such, as per the definition of Act, the complainant is not consumer towards the replying Opposite Party.  As such, the present complaint against the replying Opposite Party is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is denied that  originally music system was being fitted in the vehicle by  the Opposite Parties. It is the Opposite Party No.1 alone who is manufacturing the vehicle and fitted the accessories in the vehicle and the Opposite Party No.2 had sold out the car to the complainant with all original accessories fitted in the car. It is denied that warranty of the music system was to be executed by both the Opposite Parties. It is the manufacturing company of the car i.e. Opposite Party No.1 who provides warranty to the car and accordingly every customer has been provided by the warranty book/ service book having all the terms of the warranty.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C3  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sukomal Satyen Ex.Op1/1, copy of warranty policy Ex.Op1/2. Similarly, Opposite Party No.2  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/8 and thereafter, both the Opposite Parties closed their respective evidence.  

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased  I-10 car from Opposite Party No.2 being the agent of Opposite Party No.1 having RC No.PB-02-CL-5577, having warranty for two years and the said warranty is to be executed through Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is a ‘consumer’ as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum.   In the said vehicle, some defects arose around second week of November, 2015 which are also insured by the insurance company including the denting painting work and replacement of one window glass, there was also the defect in the music system Kenwood which is originally being fitted by the Opposite Parties and the warranty for the said is to be executed by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties conducted the denting painting work and charge of the window glass in a very callous manner and it took more than five days in changing the window glass by the Opposite Parties and the complainant remained without his car for so many days, but the complaint of the music system was not rectified by the Opposite Parties inspite of having the same under the warranty. The complainant was directed to music system dealer to get it rectified and when the complainant went to music system dealer it transpired that the music system warranty is to be provided by the Opposite Parties and moreover the problem in the said product was due to faulty wiring system of the car which was not checked by the Opposite Parties which may result into big mishap. The Opposite Parties candidly admitted their fault and rectified the electric wiring system after two days of running from pillar to post by  the complainant. Said facts about the faulty system of electrical wiring of the car was brought to the notice of the executive of the Opposite Parties Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, his attitude was very hostile towards the complainant and he used the foul language against  the complainant for which the complainant had made the written complaint, but to no effect. The aforesaid acts fo the Opposite Parties in harassing the complainant and  not rectifying the defect in the vehicle of the complainant in a timely manner and further using foul language with the complainant is an acts of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

7.       On the other hand, though Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel, but written version not filed despite of lapse of more than 45 days, hence the Opposite Party No.1 has forfeited the right to file written version, but however at the stage of evidence, to cover up their defence, 

Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sukomal Satyen Ex.Op1/1, copy of warranty policy Ex.Op1/2. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the Opposite Party No.2 denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the  extent it is expressly admitted therein. The complainant is not consumer towards the present dispute in question. No service regarding repair of music system of vehicle of the complainant was done by the replying Opposite Party nor such repair work was ever assigned/ complained by the complainant to the replying Opposite Party. As per the warranty norms provided by the Opposite Party No.1  to its customers, warranty is not applicable on tyres, music system etc. fitted in the vehicle which is being manufactured by other company and the respective manufacturing company is responsible  for the  warranty and repair of such goods. In the present case, the complainant has brought his vehicle to the service centre of the replying Opposite Party for denting and painting work and accordingly job card of dated 2.11.2016 was issued to the complainant and as per advice and instructions of the complainant denting and painting work was done by the replying Opposite Party and accordingly denting and painting work was done by the replying Opposite Party and invoice dated 9.11.2015 was issued by  replying Opposite Party and the complainant has paid the invoice charges and without any objection and complaint, the complainant has taken back the delivery of the vehicle and after passage of about one year, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has not reported about the repair work of music system and said work was not done by the replying Opposite Party as the same  has to be done by the manufacturing company of the music system fitted in the car of the complainant by the Opposite Party No.1, as such, as per the definition of Act, the complainant is not consumer towards the replying Opposite Party.  As such, the present complaint against the replying Opposite Party is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is denied that  originally music system was being fitted in the vehicle by  the Opposite Parties. It is the Opposite Party No.1 alone who is manufacturing the vehicle and fitted the accessories in the vehicle and the Opposite Party No.2 had sold out the car to the complainant with all original accessories fitted in the car. It is denied that warranty of the music system was to be executed by both the Opposite Parties. It is the manufacturing company of the car i.e. Opposite Party No.1 who provides warranty to the car and accordingly every customer has been provided by the warranty book/ service book having all the terms of the warranty.   The case of the complainant is that   some defects arose around second week of November, 2015 which are also insured by the insurance company including the denting painting work and replacement of one window glass, there was also the defect in the music system Kenwood which is originally being fitted by the Opposite Parties and the warranty for the said is to be executed by the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties conducted the denting painting work and charge of the window glass in a very callous manner and it took more than five days in changing the window glass by the Opposite Parties and the complainant remained without his car for so many days, but the complaint of the music system was not rectified by the Opposite Parties inspite of having the same under the warranty. The allegation of the Opposite Parties that there is no warranty or guarantee of the accessories which are of different companies, but such accessories are fitted by the Opposite Parties at the time of sale of the car in question to the complainant and if  the Opposite Parties fitted the accessories in the vehicle  of different company and charged the amount for the same from the complainant, it becomes the duty of the Opposite Parties to replace or repair the said defects in the said accessories because the Opposite Parties may have fitted the good companies accessories in the vehicle in question. It appears that there is lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.2 by not redressing the grievance of the complainant within a short span of warranty period. But however, the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to defend its case by filing written version despite granting sufficient opportunities for the reasons best known to them.  Due to the wrongful act and conduct, the complainant has suffered mental tension and agony which can not be compensated on the shape of money, but however, to compensate the loss of the complainant, a reasonable compensation must be awarded to the complainant for negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 is  liable to compensate the complainant.

8.       Although the complainant has made a claim for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/-, but he has not given any detail nor any documentary proof to prove the actual loss occasioned to him on account of negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2, but this Forum is competent to indulge in guess working and further use its experience to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to such compensation  only to make good the actual loss suffered by him and no exorbitant or  fanciful amount can be awarded as compensation.

9.       Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and loss occasioned by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant is entitled to grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- from Opposite Party No.2  while a sum of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon Opposite Party No.2 on account of litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.2  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Complaint against Opposite Party No.1 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 17.08.2017.