The present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the complainant Prabh Dial Saini prays for the necessary directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.26,886/- to him, which have been charged from him by the opposite parties under compelled circumstances, during the period of extended warranty and also the opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment, suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

 2.          The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased the Car Beat Diesel vide Vehicle registration No.PB-35-P-1792, Engine No.10 AB 5Z 113340048, Chassis No.MA6BFBANCCT001105 on 31.1.2012 from the opposite party no.1 through draft of full payment and the warranty of the said vehicle is for the period of 24 months or i.e. on the completion of 1,50,000/- and after 24 months or 1,50,000 Kilo meter, which ever is earlier, the warranty period would be  expired. He has next pleaded that at present his vehicle has run only about 1,20,000 Kilo Meter. Before remaining left period before the expiry of warranty period, he got extended the warranty period by making payment of Rs.6075/- through Cheque and thus the opposite parties have extended the warranty on the said vehicle which was to be commenced from 31.1.2015 to 30.1.2017. He has further pleaded that the service/repair of the Car was lastly done on 2.1.2015 and at that point of time, the Car had run uptil 1,14,836 Kilo Meters. He has paid Rs.86,00/- to the opposite party no.1 against Invoice bill dated 2.1.2005. His son went to Patiala on 2.2.2015 and he got checked the car from the opposite party no.3 and at that time the car runs upto 1,19,700 K.Ms. Opposite party no.3 retained his car and handed over the same to him on 12.2.2015 and demanded Rs.26,886/- which he has deposited to the opposite party no.3 under compelled circumstances. Actually he was not bound to pay the same, as the vehicle in question comes under the warranty and the act of the opposite parties to demand and recover the amount of Rs.26,886/- from him is illegal, null and void. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.        Upon notice, the OP no.1 appeared and filed its reply through its counsel taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Ld.Forum, as such the complainant is not entitled to seek any discretionary relief from the Hon'ble Forum. On merits, it was admitted that complainant has purchased the Car Beat Diesel from the opposite parties and warranty card duly issued by the company. The complainant has concealed the actual terms and conditions of the Warranty Card. The cut in Tyres and the defect in Armania do not fall under the warranty or guarantee. The opposite party has got no concern regarding the checking or handling over the Car to the opposite party no.5/3. The opposite party has nothing to do with the acts done by the opposite party no.3 nor received Rs.26,886/-. Infact there is no allegations against the opposite party and the complainant only levelled allegations against the opposite party no.3 which is the opposite party no.3.    All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Upon notice, opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its reply through its counsel  submitting therein that the present vehicle in question was carrying a warranty of three years or 1,00,000 kms, whichever is earlier. The vehicle in question was purchased on 31.01.2012 and it had completed 1,00,000 kms on 26.09.2014, thereafter as per the abovementioned warranty booklet the vehicle in question was not covered under warranty on behalf of opposite party no.2, therefore, the complainant dragged the opposite party no.2 to the present litigation without any reason and the complaint of the complainant deserve to be dismissed qua the opposite party no.2 on this sole ground.  All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.    Prabh Dial Saini, complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Sh.Madan Lal Authorized Representative of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence is own affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.

7.      Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanmukh Singh Khaira Zonal Manager Ex.OP2/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2/2 and closed the evidence.  

8.      We observe that the complainants’ one and only sought after singular relief comprises of refund of the Repair Bills (Ex.C6 & Ex.C7) dated 12.02.2015 for Rs.26,888/- duly charged by the OP3 vendor workshop. However, we find that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the OP3 vendor was also bound to provide him the extended warranty against the OP2 car manufacturer having duly produced on records the Retailer Sales and Service Agreement (Ex.OP2/2) expressly excluding the liability of ‘extended warranty’ upon the manufacturer and its network. Thus, the OP2 manufacturers and the OP3 vendor/workshop shall not be held responsible/liable to honor the extended warranty purchased at the OP1 vendor’s end. Further, the complainant has again failed to prove that the Car’s General Maintenance/Routine Service Bill of 02.01.2015 for Rs.8,600/- and the Cut-Tire replacement were included in the ‘Extended Warranty’ as duly rebutted by the OP1 vendor vide affidavit Ex.OP1/1. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint devoid/ bereft of all merit under the Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

November,27 2015                                                   Member

*MK*