Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.

Consumer Complaint No  : 175 of 2016

Date of Institution                      :  20.04.2016

Date of Decision               :  30.01.2019

Mr. Bhupinder Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of H.No. 19-A, Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Ajnala Road Amritsar.

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                             Versus

1. Mahindra & Mahindra, Gate Ward Building, Apollo, Bunder, Mumbai-400001 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer,
2. Universal Motors, near Canal, G.T. Road Amritsar through its Prop. /Partner/ Principal Officer.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act .

For Complainant                     Sh. Deepinder Singh Advocate.

For Opposite Party No.1                  Sh. PardeepArora Advocate

For Opposite Party No.2                  Sh. AmitMonga Advocate

Coram:                 Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

                             Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

ORDER DICTATED BY:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member

1        The complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Mahindra & Mahindra, Gate Ward Building, Apollo, Bunder, Mumbai-400001 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principal Officer and another (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite partieswith prayer that the opposites are directed to rectify the vehicle or in the alternative replace the vehicle with the same make and model or to refund Rs. 16,76,000/- alongwith interest thereon from the date of payment till realization and the complainant has also prayed Rs. 2.5 Lacs as compensation and adequate litigation expenses etc.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one vehicle Mahindra XUV500 from the opposite party No. 2 being manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.1 on 13.6.2015 for Rs. 16,76,000/- and the complainant is consumer as provided under the act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The said purchased vehicle was suffering from the major inherent defects from the date of purchase and the major defect includes the vehicle get immobilize on driving of 1-2Kms and reverse camera of the vehicle is not working and lights of sun roof are not working and the dash board is vibrating. Due to the said problem in the vehicle, the vehicle get immobilize and the steering of the vehicle cannot be moved and vehicle cannot be made to use. Complaints to the said effect were made to the opposite party No. 2 many a times but to no avail and the engineers there has shown their inability to set it right as the defect is inherited and told the complainant to wait till the engineers from the opposite party No. 1 arrives as they may be in position to solve the issue. Till the filing of the present complaint, the complainant is making futile visits to the opposite party No. 2 but to no avail and the said vehicle is in the custody of the said opposite party. The duplicate key of the vehicle was never handed over to the complainant inspite of several demands. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties are act of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice and has sold the defective vehicle and later on failed to rectify the same and has caused lot of mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant besides financial loss to the complainant and for which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 2.5Lacs as compensation. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite party, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite party.

3        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and has filed written version taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed before this Forum is not maintainable either on facts and in law and is an abuse of process of this Forum. The complainant has failed to even make out a prima faice case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the present matter. The complaint filed by the complainant is completely false, frivolous, malicious, exaggerated and vexatious. The complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset as far as opposite party No 1 is concerned. In the matter at hand, the opposite party No. 1 has maliciously been made as party to the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole intention of causing unnecessary duress and harm to the reputation and goodwill of the opposite party No. 1 and for extortion of money from the opposite parties. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  The complainant alleged in Para No. 2 of the complaintas well as the affidavit filed with the complaint that the vehicle was suffering from major inherit defects from the date of purchase wherein the vehicle got immobilized on driving for merely 1-2 Kms, and that the steering of the vehicle was not moving and that due to these and various other defects in the vehicle the complainant was not able to use the said vehicle at all. The opposite party No. 1 seeks the attention of this Forum to the Repair order dated 17^th March, 2016, the vehicle had run for approximately 27,300/- Kms. The vehicle had covered this above mentioned distance in a short period of nine months. Had, there by any iota of truth in the allegations of the complainant, the vehicle could have never covered such a long distance in such short span of time. In these circumstances, the claims of the complainant that the vehicle would become immobile on driving for merely 1-2 Kms or that the complainant was not able to use the vehicle at all stand completely refuted and the complainant stands exposed. The complainant cannot seek the relief of replacement of the car without duly proving a manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant has claimed that there were major inherit defects in the vehicle due to which the vehicle had become immobile and could not be used by the complainant. Neither has the complainant been able to provide the specific nature of the technical fault, nor has he been able to prove the technical fault by providing an expert opinion regarding the same. The complainant can prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle only by providing expert opinion certifying the same. In case of absence of an expert opinion, no manufacturing defects in the vehicle can be proved and the complainant cannot seek replacement of the engine of the vehicle from the opposite party No. 1.  The question as to whether there was or was not any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question can be decided conclusively only after obtaining an expert opinion in that behalf.The complainant has made false allegations against the opposite party No. 1 regarding deficiency in service. The complainant’s vehicle was reported on 30.6.2015 for accidental repairs. The vehicle’s front bumper was repaired and painted at Amritsar Boby shop. The opposite party No. 1 begs to state that the complainant has concealed the material fact from this Forum which shows his malafide intention. The vehicle comes for its first repair within just 17 days after travelling 2569 Kms which is strange as the complainant claims the vehicle could not move for even 1-2 Kms owing the inherit manufacturing defect in it. Whenever the complainant visited the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 for repair of his vehicle, his vehicle was duly attended to and several repairs were made at the request of the complainant. Most of the repairs were made free of costs under warranty. A perusal of the Repair orders annexed with the complaint shows that the car was brought to the authorized service of the opposite party every time after it had run for more than 1000 Kms since the previous servicing. The vehicle was therefore undergoing excessive wear and tear and all the repairs sought by the complainant were on account of the same. The opposite parties were doing everything possible towards repair of the vehicle, however, the problems in the vehicle kept surfacing due to the excessive were and tear the vehicle as undergoing on account of running for such long distances in such a short period of time. In these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot be accused of any deficiency of service.  It would be relevant here to explain the relationship between the company and its authorized dealers. The relationship between the manufacturer and dealer is on principal to principal basis. The opposite party No. 1 is not responsible for any of the act, omission of any act by its dealers. The dealer is a separate principal and not an agent of the manufacturer. Thus, dealer being separate legal entity can sue and can be sued on its own. The relationship is admitted and there is no dispute with regard to that. On merits, it was pleaded that the opposite parties did the best they could to redress the grievances of the complainant and the surfacing of problems in the vehicle were due to the conduct of the complainant himself. The disputed key of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant by the opposite parties as the standard procedure and it must have been lost by the complainant himself and now complainant is falsely implicating the opposite parties in a false complaint. The complainant can make a wrongful gain for himself and can cause a wrongful loss to opposite parties. Car was regularly serviced by the opposite party No. 2 and the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to and repaired. The vehicle was reported to the opposite parties for the repairs on dates mentioned under:-

(i)      30^th June, 2015-reproted for accidental repairs.Front bumper was repaired and painted.

(ii)     4^th August, 2015- On checking it was found that sunroof and reverse camera working fine. Same was communicated to complainant.

(iii)    10^th October 2015- Mechanical Adjustment/ repair done on sunroof and front roof light. Issue resolved.

(iv)    18^th November, 2015- Sun roof working fine and there was no noise in dashboard. Same communicated to complainant.

(v)     4^th March 2016-Starting trouble was due to battery running down. Battery charged and fitted to vehicle. Issue resolved.

(vi)    7^th March 2016- Alternator was not charging fully. Therefore, alternator replaced with new one in warranty by OEM. Issue resolved.

(vii)   17^th march, 2016- Mechanical adjustment/ Repair Done. Roof light was not in stock.

(viii)  22^nd March, 2016- Starting trouble due to battery running down. Battery replaced with new one.

The opposite parties have sent various reminders and requests to the complainant for taking the delivery of the vehicle after the same was duly repaired by the opposite parties but the complainant is not taking the delivery of the vehicle and the complainant did not pay any heed to the requests and reminders of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed that complaint may be dismissed against the opposite party No. 1 and complainant may be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 for filing of frivolous and vexatious complaint and Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 for harming the reputation and goodwill of the company and also prayed to constitute an expert committee to look in to allegations of inherit faults in the vehicle if the need arises

4        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed with the ulterior and malafide intention with object to mislead the Forum. The instant complaint otherwise is not maintainable on the strength of allegation made in the complaint against the opposite party No.2  and the same serves dismissal. Hence, this complaint warrants dismissal by imposing heavy costs upon the complainant. The complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint or to claim any relief against the opposite party No.2. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is in a very good condition and road worthy. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the present complaint. Whenever any problem is reported by the customer the same was rectified as per the proper satisfaction of the customer under the guidelines or norms of the Mahindra & Mahindra company who is manufacturer of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 is mere service provider and authorized dealer of the company. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2 and complainant just to harass the opposite party No. 2 is trying to get un due advantage of his own wrongful facts. There is no issue pending with the opposite party No.2. The complainant has cooked up the false and baseless story just to get the undue benefit from the opposite party No.2. On merits, it was pleaded that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party vide invoice dated 13.6.2015 amounting to Rs. 16,76,000/-. The complainant brought his vehicle on 30.6.2015 in accidental condition at 2569 KM for front bumper repair/ painting and the opposite party No. 2 rectified the same and delivered the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant. Whenever, any problem is reported by the customer the same was rectified as per the proper satisfaction of the customer. The complainant brought his vehicle on 4.8.2015 for 1^st free service at 5013 KM and nothing abnormal was found by the engineers of opposite party No.2 and delivered the vehicle to the customer/ complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant brought his vehicle in the month of March 2016 and reported running repair i.e. chrome strip fitment, washing and cleaning and starting problem and engineer of the opposite party No. 2 replaced waist belt chrome OTR, Promotor and chrome strip fitment under warranty free of costs to the complainant. The vehicle is in perfect condition and ready for delivery of vehicle inspite of various letters/ reminders moved by the opposite party No.2. The complainant acknowledgers the aforesaid letters/ reminders but not taken the delivery of vehicle with malafide intention. Every time before taking the delivery of the vehicle the customer taken the road test of the repaired vehicle and the vehicle was found OK and after the full satisfaction the customer remitted the repair bill.The duplicate key of the complainant was never handed over to the complainant inspite of several demands. At the time of purchase of said vehicle, the opposite party No. 2 had handed over the requisite documents, accessory as well as two keys of the vehicle to the complainant and after checking all the documents, accessory and two keys the complainant cleared the payment of the vehicle and taking the delivery from opposite party No.2. The true fact is that after purchasing of vehicle, the complainant told to the opposite party No. 2 that one key had been lost somewhere by the complainant and requested for duplicate key and then the opposite party No. 2 had ordered the duplicate key to the company for customer service. Whenever the vehicle was brought at the workshop of opposite party No. 2, the engineers of the opposite party No. 2 rectified all the problems under the guidelines of Mahindra & Mahindra company who is the manufacturer of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other allegations of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5        In order to prove his case,the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Kumar Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP1/2 to Ex. OP1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Parvinderjit Singh General Manager Ex. OP2/1 alongwith document ex. OP2/2 to Ex. OP2/27, affidavit of Sarabjit Singh Mechanic Ex. OP2/28, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Electronics Technician Ex. OP2/29 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

6        We have carefully gone through the record and have also heard the Ld. counsel for the parties.

7        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he has purchased one vehicle Mahindra XUV500 from the opposite party No. 2 being manufactured and marketed by opposite party No.1 on 13.6.2015 for Rs. 16,76,000/- and the complainant is consumer as provided under the act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The said purchased vehicle was suffering from the major inherent defects from the date of purchase and the major defect includes the vehicle get immobilize on driving of 1-2 Kms and reverse camera of the vehicle is not working and lights of sun roof are not working and the dash board is vibrating. It is also contended that due to the said problem in the vehicle, the vehicle get immobilize and the steering of the vehicle cannot be moved and vehicle cannot be made to use. Complaints to the said effect were made to the opposite party No. 2 many a times but to no avail and the Manual Repair Order form of the Vehicle in question is Ex. C-2 and Vehicle condition Report form/ Job Record of the Vehicle in question is Ex. C-3, Vehicle history is Ex. C-4. He further contended that the engineers there has shown their inability to set it right as the defect is inherited and told the complainant to wait till the engineers from the opposite party No. 1 arrives as they may be in position to solve the issue. He further contended that till the filing of the present complaint, the complainant is making futile visits to the opposite party No. 2 but to no avail and the said vehicle is in the custody of the said opposite party. The duplicate key of the vehicle was never handed over to the complainant inspite of several demands. The aforesaid acts of the opposite parties are act of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice. The complainant has relied upon 1(2018)CPJ 157 (NC) MarutiSazuki India Ltd. Vs. Dr. KoneruSatya Kishore &Ors. ofNationalConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 contended that the present complaint filed before this Forum is not maintainable either on facts and in law and is an abuse of process of this Forum. The complainant has failed to even make out a prima faice case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the present matter. He further contended that the complainant alleged in Para No. 2 of the complaint as well as the affidavit filed with the complaint that the vehicle was suffering from major inherit defects from the date of purchase wherein the vehicle got immobilized on driving for merely 1-2 Kms, and that the steering of the vehicle was not moving and that due to these and various other defects in the vehicle the complainant was not able to use the said vehicle at all. The opposite party No. 1 seeks the attention of this Forum to the Repair order dated 17^th March, 2016, the vehicle had run for approximately 27,300/- Kms. The vehicle had covered this above mentioned distance in a short period of nine months. Had, there by any iota of truth in the allegations of the complainant, the vehicle could have never covered such a long distance in such short span of time. In these circumstances, the claims of the complainant that the vehicle would become immobile on driving for merely 1-2 Kms or that the complainant was not able to use the vehicle at all stand completely refuted and the complainant stands exposed. The complainant cannot seek the relief of replacement of the car without duly proving a manufacturing defect in the car. The complainant can prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle only by providing expert opinion certifying the same. In case of absence of an expert opinion, no manufacturing defects in the vehicle can be proved and the complainant cannot seek replacement of the engine of the vehicle from the opposite party No. 1.  The question as to whether there was or was not any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question can be decided conclusively only after obtaining an expert opinion in that behalf.  The complainant’s vehicle was reported on 30.6.2015 for accidental repairs. The vehicle’s frount bumper was repaired and painted at Amritsar Boby shop. The vehicle comes for its first repair within just 17 days after travelling 2569 Kms which is strange as the complainant claims the vehicle could not move for even 1-2 Kms owing the inherit manufacturing defect in it. Whenever, the complainant visited the authorized service centre of the opposite party No. 1 for repair of his vehicle, his vehicle was duly attended to and several repairs were made at the request of the complainant. Most of the repairs were made free of costs under warranty. A perusal of the Repair orders annexed with the complaint shows that the car was brought to the authorized service of the opposite party every time after it had run for more than 1000 Kms since the previous servicing. In these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot be accused of any deficiency of service. The disputed key of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant by the opposite parties as the standard procedure and it must have been lost by the complainant himself and now complainant is falsely implicating the opposite parties in a false complaint. Car was regularly serviced by the opposite party No. 2 and the complaints made by the complainant were duly attended to and repaired. The vehicle was reported to the opposite parties for the repairs on dates mentioned in the written version. He further contended that the opposite parties have sent various reminders and requests to the complainant for taking the delivery of the vehicle after the same was duly repaired by the opposite parties but the complainant is not taking the delivery of the vehicle and the complainant did not pay any heed to the requests and reminders of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is in a very good condition and road worthy. Whenever any problem is reported by the customer, the same was rectified as per the proper satisfaction of the customer under the guidelines or norms of the Mahindra & Mahindra Company who is manufacturer of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 is mere service provider and authorized dealer of the company. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party No.2 and complainant just to harass the opposite party No. 2 is trying to get un due advantage of his own wrongful facts. He further contended that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party vide invoice dated 13.6.2015 amounting to Rs. 16,76,000/-. He further contended that the complainant brought his vehicle on 30.6.2015 in accidental condition at 2569 KM for front bumper repair/ painting and the opposite party No. 2 rectified the same and delivered the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant.  He further contended that, any problem is reported by the customer the same was rectified as per the proper satisfaction of the customer. The complainant brought his vehicle on 4.8.2015 for 1^st free service at 5013 KM and nothing abnormal was found by the engineers of opposite party No.2 and delivered the vehicle to the customer/ complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant brought his vehicle in the month of March 2016 and reported running repair i.e. chrome strip fitment, washing and cleaning and starting problem and engineer of the opposite party No. 2 replaced waist belt chrome OTR, Promotor and chrome strip fitment under warranty free of costs to the complainant. He further contended that the vehicle is in perfect condition and ready for delivery of vehicle inspite of various letters/ reminders moved by the opposite party No.2. The complainant acknowledgers the aforesaid letters/ reminders but not taken the delivery of vehicle with malafide intention. Every time before taking the delivery of the vehicle the customer taken the road test of the repaired vehicle and the vehicle was found OK and after the full satisfaction the customer remitted the repair bill. The duplicate key of the complainant was never handed over to the complainant inspite of several demands. At the time of purchase of said vehicle, the opposite party No. 2 had handed over the requisite documents, accessory as well as two keys of the vehicle to the complainant and after checking all the documents, accessory and two keys the complainant cleared the payment of the vehicle and taking the delivery from opposite party No.2. The true fact is that after purchasing of vehicle, the complainant told to the opposite party No. 2 that one key had been lost somewhere by the complainant and requested for duplicate key and then the opposite party No. 2 had ordered the duplicate key to the company for customer service. He further contended that whenever the vehicle was brought at the workshop of opposite party No. 2, the engineers of the opposite party No. 2 rectified all the problems under the guidelines of Mahindra & Mahindra Company who is the manufacturer of the vehicle. He further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8        We have heard the contentions of Ld. counsel for the parties

9        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 2. Now the dispute in the present case is that the complainant stated that from the major inherent defects from the date of purchase and the major defect includes the vehicle get immobilize on driving of 1-2 Kms and reverse camera of the vehicle is not working and lights of sun roof are not working and the dash board is vibrating. On the other hands, opposite party No. 1 in its written version in Para No. 12 itself pleaded that vehicle was reported to the opposite parties for the repairs on different dates i.e. 30^th June 2015, 4^th August 2015, 10^th October 2015, 18^th November 2015, 4^th March 2016, 7^th March 2016, 17^th March 2016 and 2^nd March 2016. As well as the resolution obtained by the opposite parties for solving the problems of the vehicle are mentioned date was as under:-

(i)      30^th June, 2015-reproted for accidental repairs.Frount bumper was repaired and painted.

(ii)     4^th August, 2015- On checking it was found that sunroof and reverse camera working fine. Same was communicated to complainant.

(iii)    10^th October 2015- Mechanical Adjustment/ repair done on sunroof and frount roof light. Issue resolved.

(iv)    18^th November, 2015- Sun roof working fine and there was no noise in dashboard. Same communicated to complainant.

(v)     4^th March 2016-Starting trouble was due to battery running down. Battery charged and fitted to vehicle. Issue resolved.

(vi)    7^th March 2016- Alternator was not charging fully. Therefore, alternator replaced with new one in warranty by OEM. Issue resolved.

(vii)   17^th march, 2016- Mechanical adjustment/ Repair Done. Roof light was not in stock.

(viii)  22^nd March, 2016- Starting trouble due to battery running down. Battery replaced with new one.

The Photostat copy of the vehicle history and Job Card of the aforesaid vehicle is being annexed herewith as Annexure I. The opposite party No. 2 in its written version has also pleaded in Para No. 3 that whenever any problem is reported by the customer the same was rectified a per the proper satisfaction of the customer under the guidelines and norms of Mahindra & Mahindra Company who is manufacturer of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 has also pleaded in the written version various visits of the complainant in its written version for repair of the vehicle. To prove this fact that the vehicle was repaired as and when it was brought by the complainant, the opposite parties have placed on record vehicle history Ex. OP1/2 and to prove this contention, the he opposite parties No. 2 has also brought on record copy of Job Card dated 16.11.2015 Ex. OP2/2,  Copy of Job card dated 9.10.2015 bearing No. 1824 Ex. OP2/5, Copy of Job card dated 16.1.2016bearing No. 36 Ex. OP2/9, copy of Job card dated 7.3.2016 bearing No. 91 Ex. OP2/11, Copy of job card dated 28.6.2015 bearing No. 777 Ex. OP2/15, Copy of Job Card dated 4.8.2015 bearing No. 3582 Ex. OP2/18, Copy of vehicle history containing pages 1 to 6Ex. OP2/21. The complainant has also produced on record Vehicle History C-4 in which the total number of visits have been mentioned 30. It all shows that there is some problem in the vehicle i.e. why the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 (30 times) for solving the problem in the vehicle. It all records produced by the opposite parties indicates that the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop of opposite party No. 2 a number of occasions with complaints in the vehicle in question and as per version of the complainant, the defects in the vehicle have not been removed. The consumer cannot be expected to take the vehicle to the workshop on a number of occasions, unless there are defects in the said vehicle. In the history sheet of the vehicle Ex. OP2/21 shows the mechanic name as Sarabjit Singh and Baljinder Singh.  Theopposite party No.2has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sarabjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh, mechanic of M/s Universal motors Ex. OP2/28and in his cross examination, he admitted that he is not automobile engineer and no engineer from the company came to repair the vehicle at their station. Similarly the opposite party No.2 has also tendered in evidence affidavit of Baljinder Singh son of Ajmer Singh Electrician of M/s Universal Motors Ex. OP2/29 in which he also admitted that he is not automobile engineer and no engineer from the company came to repair to vehicle at their service station. It shows that the vehicle in question was attended by the persons who are not automobile engineers and it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties that they have not got checked the vehicle in question from automobile engineer nor any engineer has come from the company side. As per 1(2008) CPJ 157(NC) (supra) it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi that defects not removed despite several visits to workshop. Vehicle had to be taken to workshop of dealer on a number of occasions with complaints of intermittent Jerks, running and hash noise from gear box assembly system. Dealer made efforts to remove defects but vehicle could not be made free from such defects. It has also been held that consumer cannot be expected to take vehicle to workshop on a number of occasions, a vehicle is said to be suffering from ‘defect’, if there is any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard, which was required to be maintained under any law in force. Vehicle did suffer from defects as it had to be taken to workshop of dealer from time to time. The petitioner failed in the task to provide vehicle in road worthy condition to complainant. Dealer did carry out repairs in vehicle as per job cars, but was not able to remove the defects in vehicle. Refund of purchase price and compensation rightly awarded. In the case in hand, as per record of Job sheets and history of the vehicle it proved that the complainant has brought the vehicle to the opposite party No. 2 several times for its repair but the opposite party No. 2 has failed to satisfy the complainant and by not removing the solving the defects in the car in question, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10      In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace the vehicle in question with same make and model or to refund the price of the vehicle to the tune of Rs.16,76,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Lacs seventy six thousand only).The complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 7,000/-(Rupees Seven thousand only) as litigation expenses from both the opposite parties. Opposite Partiesare directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.