Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/47/2016

Gurpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lovely Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Ekam Singh

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   47 of 15.06.2016 

Date of Decision                :   05.02.2018

Gurpreet Kaur Resident of A-1, Judicial Court Complex, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Lovely  Autos, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar Punjab through its CEO, Mr.Amit Mittal.
2. Lovely  Autos, Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar Punjab through its Managing Director.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, India – 110070 through its Managing Director.
4. Lovely Autos, Chandigarh, Langroya, Nawanshahr through its General Manager Sales.
5. Lovely Autos, Chandigarh, Langroya, Nawanshahr through its General Manager Service.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

Sh.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

Sh.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant           :         Sh.Ekam Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. P.S Bakshi, Advocate

 

ORDER 

PER .A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT

1. Complaint Gurpreet Kaur wife of Sh.Jaspal Singh Guru Resident of A-1, Judicial Court Complex, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( hereinafter referred to as the Act)  through her attorney Sh.Jaspal Singh Guru. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant had purchased a car Maruti CIAZ ZDI – CIRDCL1 (Prl. Snow White 3 – ZQM Colour) from Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road Langroya, Nawanshahr on 13.08.2015 bearing No.PB-13-AC-0028.  At the time of purchase, complainant was not provided with proper invoice and form No.21 and 22 for the said vehicle.  After numerous telephonic calls and visits to Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road Langroya Nawanshahr, the documents were made available after almost 2 months from the sale of vehicle.  The complainant was cheated by not providing the requisite documents at the time of sale of said vehicle and the same were provided to complainant on 07.10.2015.  The complainant was promised a discount of Rs.50,000/- as per consumer offer policy of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Rs.25,000/- as Exchange Bonus as the complainant had exchanged her old Maruti Dzire VDI bearing Chassis No.145228, but in the invoice the discount given stand as Rs.43,745/- and Rs.21,872/- respectfully as against what was promised.  That the total amount of Rs.9683/- was fraudulently deducted from the discount promised on the account of the same being deducted as VAT.  The complainant was wrongly and fraudulently charged Rs.14035/- for extended warranty which she never consented to avail.  On 14.08.2015, the complainant took the vehicle to Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road Langroya Nawanshahr as there were problems with the central locking system, door glasses sliding down, chipped front tyre and that the hardboard in the dicky was faulty.  That no job card was issued on the pretext that the vehicle is under warranty and necessary repairs undertaken and client will not face these problems again.  Again on 21.08.2015, the vehicle was taken to Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road, Langroya Nawanshahr, with complaint, regarding low pick-up, noise from dashboard, central locking system, door glasses sliding down, hardboard in the dicky faulty and chipped front tyre.  The complainant was assured that the problems have been resolved and will not face them anymore and the 1^st service of the vehicle was done.  Replacement of the tyre and the hardboard in the dicky was promised and informed that the request for the same forwarded to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.  Again on 27.08.2015, the vehicle was brought to Lovely autos, Chandigarh Road Langroya Nawanshahr with complaint regarding low pick-up, noise from dashboard, door glasses sliding down, problem with the reverse gear, the reverse parking display not working properly and the reverse sensor system not giving beep sound even when there was some obstruction, horn not functioning properly, noise from the steering wheel, Bluetooth not working properly, air flow from outside in the cabin, vibration in the steering, problem with rear AC duct etc.  After carrying the necessary repairs the complainant was assured that she will not face any problem from now and that the tyre and dicky hardboard will be replaced at the earliest.  The OPs have cheated by not brining the faults in the vehicle on record and just entered free checkup in the job card.  Again on 18.09.2015, the vehicle was brought to Lovely Autos, Chandigarh Road Langroya Nawanshahr for resolving the problems with regard to starting noise, horn, central locking system, reverse gear, reverse parking system, low pick-up, Bluetooth connectivity, door glass sliding down, vibration and noise from steering wheel, noise from dashboard etc and for the 2^nd free service.  This time again the complainant was assured that the problems have been taken care and will not face such problems in future.  On 01.10.2015, the vehicle was again brought to said Lovely autos with problem of noise from engine and also problems enumerated earlier.  To the utter surplice it came to fore that the 2^nd service was due as it was not done on 18.09.2015, then undertook 2^nd service of the vehicle by entering false and lower mileage as 4980 which was not true as the mileage of the car was much more on that date.  Complainant was cheated as the service of the vehicle was not undertaken on 18.09.2015, when the same was sent for service but the service was carried out on 01.10.2015 when the vehicle was taken for pick-up problem and noise from the engine and also other enumerated earlier.  The said vehicle was brought to said Lovely autos time and again the resolving the problem but everything after carrying out inspection of the vehicle the complainant was assured that such problem will not arise again and the complainant was not provided job cards for the same on the pretext that the vehicle was under warranty and necessary repairs undertaken. 
3. On 30.12.2015, the vehicle was again taken to workshop of Lovely Autos for problem of central locking system, reverse gear, reverse display and sensor system, starting problem, door glasses sliding, noise and vibration in the steering, scratches under all the door handles, cold air coming inside cabin from doors etc.  the tyre and the dicky hardboard was replaced and this time again the complainant assured that the problem are resolved and will not face again.  The vehicle again developed same problem and now even the paint from the doors and other parts have started to give off.  The vehicle was again taken to said Lovely Autos for solving the problem being faced by the complainant on 09.01.2016.  The stereo was replaced and the complainant was once again assured that she will not face any problem from now.  Complainant not only has suffered mental and physical harassment but her health as well as of her 2 years old son of has been compromised as while travelling continuous flow of air from outside comes inside the cabin and thereby making the travelling in winters very comfortable and during summer season flow of hot air from outside makes the travelling experience very uncomfortable.  That as on date there continue to be so many problems in the car and that scratch marks under the door handles are visible and the paint from doors and other parts  rusting has started at some parts only after few months of purchase, there remains no doubt that the car in question is used/old/demo piece. 
4. The vehicle was again sent to said Lovely Autos for problem of low pick up, noise from steering and dashboard, air flow in cabin from outside, faulty reverse sensor and display system etc on 12.05.2016 and this time also repairs were undertaken and assured that the problems will not reoccur again. 
5. That said Lovely Autos has cheated the complainant by not providing the job cards to complainant and also by not brining on record the jobs and repairs undertaken by them on record fully and just entering details as general check up, free check up and not enlisting all the problem on record.  Till date, said Lovely Autos has not provided the complainant necessary affidavit regarding purchase of old Dzire car and haven’t got it transferred and registered in its name.  The complainant even complained with regard to the problem being faced on the toll free number of Maruti Suzuki Pvt Ltd vide complaint No.2815205834 dated 15.03.20145 and further on 25.10.2015 vide complaint No.1224034758 but the problems remain unattended till date.  Lastly, it is prayed that following directions be issued to OPs:-

1. Entire amount of Rs.9,25,405/- be refunded and the vehicle be taken back.
2. Rs.60,000/- spent on registration of the vehicle be paid.

Otherwise

Replace the old car as soon as possible and to handover the replaced car to the complainant and pay Rs.60,000/- spent on the registration of the vehicle be paid.

3.  To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
4. To pay litigation expenses.
5. The complainant be allowed to retain the No.PB-13-AC-0028.
6. Any other appropriate relief be granted to the complainant.
7. All consequential relief be granted to complainant.  

6. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and  accordingly OP No.1,2, 4&5 appeared through counsel and filed written statement but vide order dated 30.03.2017, in Revision Petition No.40/2016, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, ordered that written reply filed by OP No.1,2,4&5 on 19.08.2016 not to be taken on record, as the same was stuck off. 
7. OP No.3 has appeared and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections, inter  alia,  that  complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint without any material on record against the answering OP.  Complainant has failed to set out any case of deficiency in services as per Section 2(1)(g) or unfair trade practice as per Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against answering OP.  The obligation of answering OP under the warranty is part and parcel of the sale contract is specific as set out in the warranty policy (Clause -3 ) as enumerated in the owner’s manual and service booklet.  The answering OP is only responsible for providing warranty services during the warranty period i.e. 2 years or 40,000/- KMs, from the date of sale. The warranty is subject to certain terms and conditions and limitations as set out in owner’s manual & service booklet.  It is submitted that there is no neglect or default on the part of answering OP of any nature. No  cause of action arose against the answering OP.  The complainant failed to set out any specific allegation in the present complaint against answering OP and does not fall within the provision of the Act.  The complainant is trying to get unwarranted gains by filing this vexatious complaint before this Forum. That complainant has categorically failed to set out any case for compensation within the provision of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.  The complainant has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate her claim for compensation against answering OP.  The complainant is not consumer of answering OP so far relating to the alleged transaction of sale is concerned. The complaint filed by complainant is an afterthought and filed with an ulterior motive to make undue from the answering OP.  On merits, OP submitted that the complainant brought the vehicle in question under the contract for sale of goods (car) and the answering OP was not party to the said contract.  It is submitted that the answering OP sells its products to its authorized dealer and the relationship between the answering OP and the dealer is that of Principal – to – Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the OPs.  As per clause 5 of the dealership agreement, the dealer shall not be deemed to be the agent or representative for any purpose and the dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such.  The subject matter in dispute relates to independent contract for sale of vehicle entered between complainant and OP-4.  Further, it submitted that vehicle in question had a manufacturer’s warranty for 24 months or 40,000 KMs, whichever is earlier, subject to the terms of primary warranty and instructions enumerated in the owner’s manual & service booklet.  The complainant was required to take the vehicle in question to the workshop of any authorized dealer for obtaining warranty service.  The dealer issues the job card if vehicle comes to their workshop for warranty service as the dealer claims parts replaced from the answering OP.  In the absence of job card, the dealer cannot claim parts from the answering OP.  Further it is submitted that answering OP recommended periodically maintenance of vehicle as per schedule in the owner’s manual & service booklet.  Complainant was required to point out the specific defect, when it was noticed in the ordinary use of vehicle, at the time of opening of Job card at the workshop.  Complainant has filed Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 which are the copies of job cards retail memo and the same do not disclose any defect in the vehicle as alleged.  The vehicle in question was duly inspected and the services as per the terms and conditions were provided to the complainant. The air conditioner was inspected and no abnormality was found in the vehicle.  The complainant was educated about the air conditioner air through and the vehicle was delivered to the complete satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the record.  The complainant is making hue and cry without any basis.  It submitted that there is nothing on record, that these problem were reported to the workshop of OP-5 and the complainant has failed to substantiate her claim as alleged.  The complainant is making purposeful and extensive use of the vehicle as the vehicle has been plied for 9940 KMs in a short span of two months.  If there had been any defect the vehicle would not have plied such a distance.  It is submitted that vehicle was sent to workshop of OP-5 on 30.12.2015 at 14496 KMs and a cut in tyre and dirty dickey was reported.  The complainant did not report the other problems as alleged to the workshop.  Upon inspection the center locking was found OK and tyre had an outside cut.  It is submitted that even though tyres are not covered under warranty as per Clause 4(2), but still the tyre was replaced free of charge as a matter of goodwill gesture and the vehicle was delivered to the complete satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the record.  Further, it submitted that the vehicle was sent to workshop of OP-5 on 09.01.2016 at 15710 KMs and it was reported that stereo is not working.  It is submitted that stereo system was received from the vendor and replaced under warranty and the vehicle was checked and was found in perform OK condition.  There was no repeated defect.   It is submitted that on 12.04.2016 complete detailed inspection was carried out and the vehicle was found in perfect condition and complainant was educated about the same.  It is also submitted that vehicle was sent to the workshop of OP-5 on 12.05.2016 at 23466 KMs with problem  in horn, door glass movement, noise from steering and reverse alarm not working were reported.  The vehicle was attended as per warranty as enumerated in the owner’s manual & service booklet.  Upon due inspection horn was adjusted and found OK.  The vehicle was road tested and door glass movement was found OK and no noise was observed from in the steering.  The reverse alarm was checked 10 times and found in the perfect OK condition.  The vehicle was delivered in perfect OK condition to the complete satisfaction of the complainant.  Further, it submitted that complainant is making false allegations without placing any material on record.  The vehicle was in perfect OK condition and the complainant has been making purposeful use of the vehicle.  Rest of the averments have been denied by OP-3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
8. In order to prove complaint, counsel for the complainant, tendered into evidence power of attorney Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of sales Ex.C-3, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-4, copy of document in support of invoice ETC handed over on 07.10.2015 Ex.C-5, copy of document support of discount of Rs.50,000/- Ex.C-6, copy of document in support of discount of Rs.25000/- Ex.C-7, copy of job cards Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12, photographs Ex.C-13/1 to Ex.C-13/42, copy of job card retail cash memo Ex.C-14, copy of extract form warranty policy Ex.C-15, copy of legal notice Ex.C-16 and also affidavit of Sh.Jaspal Singh Guru attorney of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith C.D. of photographs of car No.PB13AC-0028 Ex.C-17, and further tendered affidavit of Sh.Sukhpreet Singh Ex.CW2/B and bill dated 14.11.2016 Ex.C-18 and then closed the evidence.
9. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-18, further photocopies of documents Ex.OP-19 to Ex.OP-46 and closed the evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the vehicle in dispute was having manufacturing defects, which could not be rectified. He stated that it is established from the copy of job cards Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-12 that the vehicle was taken to the workshop more than 15 times but the OPs failed to remove the manufacture defects .He further pleaded that complainant requested the OP no.3 to send its expert team for inspection of the vehicle and the teams vide its  inspection report dated 12.04.2016(Ex.OP-14) pointed out the defects. The relevant portion of said para is reproduced as under:- 

“(5)    Air leakage inside cabin, Air leakage was present in the Right side of the vehicle to a small extent.

(6)     Dash board vibration, Minor noise observed in the rough road on highway and city road found OK.

(7)     Steering vibration/noise – no vibration observed, noise while steering was present to small extent. Same was with new vehicle.

(11)   Paint peel off :- Paint peel off was available at the edges of the component.  Need to revert.

(12)    Rusting inside bonnet:- Rusting was near welded joint of the under bonnet & on fastner.

11. It has been vehemently been contended by counsel for the complainant, that the aforestated inspection report (Ex.OP-14) given by the technical team of  the OP no.3 clearly establishes that the vehicle in question was having defects which cannot be removed/rectified. In support of his submissions learned counsel citied certain case laws; Anantharam Vs Fiat India Ltd and others, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 2010(1) CLT 613, - RP No.51 and 93 of 2005, titled as Jeewan Motors (P) Ltd Vs Tariq Irshad and Anr, decided on 14.07.2009 by Hon’ble National Commission, 2010(1) C.P.R. 73: 2009 (4) CPJ 188 - Appeal No.46 of 2008 titled as Auto Industries Goa Pvt. Ltd and Anr Vs Domic Correia, decided by Hon’ble Goa State Commission, Panaji,  2015(3) CLT 586: 2015(35), - Appeal No. 328 of 2012 titled as Hindustan Motors & Ors Vs M/s Chinmaya International Foundation & Ors,  decided by Hon’ble Kerala State Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, 2012 Latest HLJ (H.P. 1532: 2013(2) C.P.R. 11 - First Appeal No.314 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Negi Vs Sai Automobiles and others, decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Himachal Pradesh, 2010(2) CLT 229 - First Appeal No.397 of 2004 titled as Pal Singh Vs Sant Prem Singh Tractor Traders and another, decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab.
12. On the, other hand Learned counsel for the OP No.-3 stated that,  complainant is making purposeful and extensive use of the vehicle, as the said vehicle has been plied for 9940 KMs in a short span of two months.  If there had been any manufacture defect the vehicle could not have plied such a distance. He submitted that said vehicle was sent to workshop of OP-5 on 30.12.2015 at 14496 KMs with a cut in tyre and dirty dickey/trunk was reported. Learned counsel vehemently contended that it is established from the copies of job cards history Ex.OP-30 to Ex.OP- 41, placed on record, that on every visit to the workshop the said vehicle was thoroughly checked and if any minor defect was found, it was rectified.
13. Learned counsel pleaded that the minor defects pointed out in inspection report Ex/OP-14 can be rectified, it is nowhere stated in the inspection report that the said defects are inherent manufacturing defect. He further pleaded that none of the persons who inspected the said vehicle were examined by the complainant in order to prove his allegations. Learned counsel argued that in absence of any expert opinion as regard to manufacture defect, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.     
14. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, written submissions as well as oral submissions, in our opinion the points to be considered are, Whether Vat could be charged on the discount being offered by OPs on the MRP and whether extended warranty was issued by the OP no. without consent of the complainant. Whether  inherent manufacturing defect has been proved in the vehicle in question.
15. As regard to charging of Vat on the discount by the OP no.4  is concerned, this point is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled as I AM IN versus Heena Aggarwal, I(2017)CPJ 141(UT CHD), wherein it has been observed in para no.7 “Once it has come on record that the MRP of the product includes all taxes, it is not open for the trader to impose VAT again on the discounted price.”
16. The OPs have failed to place on record any cogent material to rebut the same. The OPs are totally silent, on what basis they had charged Vat on the discounted price. Further OP has also failed to justify, why extended warranty was issued, without due consent from the complainant.    
17. As regard to manufacture defect in the vehicle, the learned counsel has relied upon the inspection report Ex/OP-14 .After Perusal of the inspection report, it has come to our notice that it is nowhere stated in the said report that the vehicle was having any inherent manufacture defect. The technical team has only pointed out minor defects, moreover the technical team of OP no.3 who had inspected the said vehicle has not been examined by filing interrogatories . In our opinion the onus to prove manufacture defect was upon the complainant. The material placed on record, history job sheets(Ex.OP-30 to Ex.OP-41) proves that the said vehicle was taken to the workshops of  authorized dealers of OP no.3 and the workshops after inspection had been regularly rectifying the defects, if found. No independent expert opinion has been taken nor any cogent material has been placed on record, in order to prove inherent manufacture defect in the vehicle.
18. The case laws relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as in all the referred case, cogent expert opinion with supporting material was placed on record, in order to prove inherent manufacture defect. Thus the ratio of the cases cited are distinguishable. 
19. In case titled as Tata Motors Limited Versus Sartaj Singh and Others 2012(2)CLT 342, the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, observed in para no “21. “Respondent No.1 has not examined any expert, nor any mechanic even to prove that there was excessive oil consumption, or there was some defect in the gear system of the engine of in other parts of the engine. Law is well settled and the appellant has relied upon a number of authorities, to show that without there being any expert evidence, it cannot be concluded that there was manufacturing defect in the engine.”

In case of “Sundeep Polymers Private limited & Anr. Vs. Mercedes Benz India Pvt.Ltd.”, III(2009) CPJ 389 (NC), it was held that the burden to prove inherent defect is on the complainant.

          In case titled as “Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & Anr.” I(2010)CPJ 235(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission in para-15 observed as follows:-

“The onus to prove that there was manufacturing defect was on complainant/ respondent no.1.We agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent no.1 failed to prove that there was any manufacturing defect by producing any cogent evidence. Complainant failed to produce expert evidence as provided under Section 13(1)(c)of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 which provides as under:-

“(c) where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis or test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory alongwith a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum”.

Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case “Chandeshwar Kumar  vs. Tata Engineering Locomotive Co.Ltd.&Anr.”, I(2007)CPJ 2(NC)”,   Classic Automobiles Versus Lila Nand Mishra & Anr. 2010(2)CLT 367 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in which it has been held in paras:

               “14. The District Forum could have appointed an expert of its own, based upon whose findings, a finding could be recorded with regard to the manufacturing defect . In the absence of any expert evidence, merely on the fact that the car was repeatedly brought to the service station for repairs/rectifications, it cannot be held that there was a manufacturing defect in the car. Whenever the car was brought to the service station, it was attended to by the petitioner. The petitioner is the service provider of the car and the Counsel for complainant/respondent No.1 was unable to show any deficiency on the part of the petitioner in attending to the car whenever it was brought to the petitioner’s service station  Satnam” Singh Versus Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.& others 2014(3)CLT 507 for the observation : “Defective vehicle- Held- That only the defective parts can be replaced, but not the whole vehicle, Revision petition dismissed”.

Recently the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled as Dynamic Motors Vs Sunil Uppal IV(2017)CPJ 19 has observed as;

 “Car was taken to workshop for 42 times which is more than routine number. Such numbers of visits cannot be expected of a new car in a period of 4 years. Expert report though mentions some defects but has nowhere said that vehicle was having manufacture defect. Considering running of the car, its condition, accident and depreciation, District Forum should not have ordered replacement of car.”  

20. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the aforementioned  extracts of decisions of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commissions, we find that the  complainant has failed to prove any inherent manufacture defect in the said vehicle thus no deficiency in service is proved against OPs, as regard to manufacturing defect.
21. Further, we find OP no.4 has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging VAT on discounted price and thereby issued extended warranty without the consent of the complainant.
22. Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed qua OP No.3&4 with directions to:

1. OP no.4 to refund a sum of Rs.9683/-  whereby VAT had been charged on discounted price alongwith 9% P.A. interest from the date of filing the present complaint.
2. OP no.4 to refund a sum of Rs. 14035/- charges of extended warranty alongwith 9% P.A. interest from the date of filing the present complaint.
3. OP no.3 to rectify/remove the defects pointed out by the technical team(Ex.OP-14) of the OP no.3.
4. OP No.3&4 to pay jointly and severally a compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- for causing undue physical harassment and mental agony to complainant for taking the vehicle to the workshops frequently alongwith litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The OPs are further directed to comply the order of this Forum within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which, complainant shall be entitled @12% p.a.(simple).

23. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
24.  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.01.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

  Dated 05.02.2018                                                       

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                                  President