Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh.........President.

The complainant has filed this application U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986  and praying for the following relief/order:

1. Direction against the OPs to make replacement of the new vehicle of the same brand or similar brand of same price in place of the defective vehicle manufactured by the OP No. 2 and sold by the OP No. 1 in favour of the complainant.
2. Direction against the OP No. 1 to refund a sum of Rs. 6,57,375/- to the complainant.
3. Direction against the OPs to refund the amount of spare parts and labour charges of Rs. 4,503/- which was taken by the OP no. 1 from the complainant on 25.09.2012.
4. Direction against the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as the cost of carriage for sending the vehicle at the workshop of the OP no. 1.
5. Direction against the OPs to pay sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant towards mental pain and agony.
6. Direction against the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation cost totaling of Rs. 9,96,878/- only (657375+4503+20000+300000+15000).

BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainant purchased one Ford 1.4 FIGO TITANIUM on 23.04.2012 for his personal use from the showroom of OP No. 1 and the OP No. 2 is manufacturing company of the said vehicle / by purchasing the said vehicle the complainant became the consumer of the Opposite parties / the model no., of the vehicle is Ford FIGO 1.4 TITANIUM, registration no. WB74Y2560, Chassis No. MAJIXXMRJ1CA61425 , Engine no. CA 61425, variant diesel, colour diamond white.
2. That the OP issued the invoice no. VSLAC00010LS dated 23.04.2012 from which it is evident that the price of the vehicle was of Rs. 6,05,684/- only though the payment was acknowledged by the OP vide receipt no. 1728 dated 23.04.2012 for Rs. 6,57,375/- and the payment was made through the cheque no. 050276 issued by the complainant in favour of OP No. 1 but the reason for such excess amount taken by the OP was neither been explained nor the difference amount was refunded.
3. That the vehicle supplied by the OP No. 1 was not up to the mark as per the specific standard and quality as because in spite of regular servicing from the workshop of the OP No. 1 the injector of the vehicle became out of order on 25.09.2012 i.e. within the warranty period of the said vehicle and though the vehicle was under warranty and the failure was not within the exclusion clause mentioned in the owner’s manual but the OP has taken Rs. 1,570/- as cost of spare parts and labour charges and further amount of Rs. 3,933/- as labour charges.
4. That the spare parts of the vehicle within the period of warranty became under out of order within a period of 9 months from the date of 25.09.2012 and the complainant then informed the matter to the OP No. 1 who suggested the complainant to handover the vehicle to O.P. showroom and workshop for necessary repair work and the complainant on 08.06.2013 handed over the vehicle to the OP No. 1 for necessary repair and the OP even after taking the vehicle in his custody from the complainant kept mum in respect of defective spare parts and the complainant on 24.06.2013 was compelled to sent one letter duly registered with AD in favour of OP No. 1 for taking necessary measures in respect of the defective vehicle supplied by the OP No. 1 and also requested the OP No. 1 to make arrangement for replacement of said vehicle with new one. But the OP No. 1 received the letter on 03.07.2013 which was evident from the letter issued by the Department of Post vide letter no. 10005415524 dated 18.07.2013 and the OP No. 1 after receipt of the letter intimated the complainant to deposit the cost of material (spare parts) and labour charges as mentioned in their letter dated 25.07.2013 and the price of pump fuel injection was of Rs. 33,775.86/- and the price of injector ASY-STG-4 was of Rs. 62,653.92/- and labour charges for pump fuel injector replace of Rs. 2500/- and injector ASY replace charge was of Rs. 1500/- and total parts & labour charges was of Rs. 1,00,429.78/- along with service tax 12.36% extra.
5. That the complainant became surprised as and when received the estimated cost so supplied by the OP No. 1 and previously on 25.09.2012 the complainant already make replacement of the spare parts i.e. FUEL FILTER ASSY INJECTOR, ASY STG- 4 , FULE FILTER ELEMENT-R & R ONE QUANTITY AND FUEL INJECTORS – R&R-ALL and after replacement of the said spare parts the vehicle again became in disorder condition / the complainant became aware that the vehicle which was supplied by the OP no. 1 was completely having some major manufacturing defects in its engine and for the said reason the vehicle is defective since the date of purchase and the OP no. 1 suppressed the defect sold the vehicle and due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle the above noted disorder took place within a short period of time.
6. That the OP No. 1 intentionally within a period of warranty sent the huge amount of estimated cost with a view to avoid the replacement of the vehicle with new one and the OPs intentionally avoided their duties and responsibility towards their consumer.
7. That due to illegal activities of OPs the complainant suffered a great irreparable loss and pecuniary injury and deprived from the utility and benefit and proper service of the vehicle which was purchased by the complainant for his personal usage and the OPs are all responsible for the same and the OPs are also liable to compensate the aforesaid illegal activities.
8. That by the behavior of the OPs the complainant suffered mental pain agony and such type of behavior was not expected from the OPs and the illegal activities of the OPs not only harass the complainant but also slept from performing his duties towards their consumer and they have also failed to perform their duties of giving proper service to the consumer complainant and that’s why the complainant has filed this case against the OPs.
9. That the cause of action in filing this case arose when the complainant purchased the vehicle on 23.04.2012 from the showroom of the OP no. 1 and also from when the OP No. 1 on 23.04.2013 took excessive amount of the vehicle from the actual price of the vehicle from the complainant and the cause of action also arose as and when the aforesaid purchased vehicle of the complainant became defective within the period of warranty and the OP No. 1 duly replaced the defective spare parts on 25.09.2012 by taking cost of the labour charge and also cost of some of the spare parts and also from when the aforesaid vehicle again became under disorder on 08.06.2013 when the complainant was on the way to the OP Showroom and also from when the OP on 08.06.2013 took the vehicle under his custody for necessary checkup and also from when the OP did not intimate the complainant and also from when the complainant on 24.06.2013 issued one letter in favour of the complainant and the OP party duly received the same and intimate the huge estimated cost of replacement of the spare parts of the vehicle and also from when the OP did nothing towards the replacement  of defective vehicle in favour of the complainant.

In order to prove the case the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. Tax Invoice dated 23.04.2012 issued by the OP No. 1
2. Money receipt dated 23.04.2012 issued by O.P. No. 1
3. Tax invoice dated 22.05.2012 showing first free service.
4. Tax invoice dated 22.12.2012 showing the second free service.
5. Certificate of registration along with tax receipt
6. Copy of insurance policy of the vehicle
7. Tax invoice dated 25.09.2012 issued by OP No 1 showing the repair work done including the details of the spare parts, labour charges.
8. Letter dated 24.06.2013 issued by the complainant in favour of the OP No. 1
9. Delivery receipt of postal department dated 13.07.2013.
10. Copy of estimated cost supplied by OP No. 1 dated 25.07.2013
11. 24 Months new vehicle warranty (Xerox copy).

Notice was issued from this Commission upon the O.Ps which were duly served.

On receipt of notice the OP No. 1 appears before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed written version, denied all the material allegation of the complainant. In the written version the OP No. 1 has stated that the case is not maintainable in law or fact, the application of the complainant is mala fide, illegal and unlawful/ the application filed by the complainant is vague, baseless and complainant has no locus standi to file this case/ the complainant has filed this case against the OPs on some false allegation to harass them / the complaint is barred by the principle of waiver, estoppels, and acquiescence / the OP No. 1 does not admit any of the allegation leveled against them in the complaint petition. The OP No. 1 has also stated that the contents of Para No 1 are matter of record / the statements made in Para No. 2 of complaint are partly true. The OP No. 1 in the W/V has also stated that due to regular servicing from the workshop of the OP No. 1 the injector of the vehicle became out of order on 25.09.2012 is not true and the fact that the injector of the vehicle became out of order come to knowledge when the complainant handed over the vehicle to the workshop on 05.09.2012 but not on 25.09.2012 when the warranty period of said vehicle due to water entry into the fuel system by the complainant but the problem creating from the engine falls under exclusion clause of the warranty. The OP no. 1 has also stated that when the OP No. 1 has taken the charges of spare part and labour charges only against other default checking charges as the complainant was not entitled to get replacement of the said injector due to water entry into the fuel system which very fact was suppressed by the complainant in his complaint and the OP No. 1 being the owner of the showroom obliged to the complainant and replaced new injector in place of said fault injector without charging any amount but the complainant has to incur the bill and taxes of Rs. 1,570/-  and Rs. 3,933/- to the accounts of spare parts and labour charges for extra works. It is also stated by the OP no. 1 that the vehicle was handed over with a reporting to the workshop of the OP No. 1 on 05.09.2012 by the complainant for having starting problem and the OP started correspondence through emails with the OP No. 2 since 14.09.2012 till 21.09.2012 and gist of the emails are that, after checking the air filter it was found oil quality was okay and fuel filter was changed and the OP No. 1 was advised to check DTC Screenshot to the OP No. 2 and the OP no. 1 reported the OP no. 2 stating inter alia that there was no DTC but while checking there was a noise from the injector, the pin point test was found out to be okay after interchanging the injector from other vehicle, the car gained motion and the OP No. 2 advised the OP no. 1 to inspect the fuel condition and share the sample photo and also inspection of any blockage in fuel lines etc. The OP no. 2 advised the OP No. 1 to inspect the fuel condition and share the sample photo and also inspection of any blockage in fuel lines and the OP No. 1 reported the OP No. 2 after observing the formalities from that there was no blockage in fuel lines and also replaced the injector from demo car for testing and found that the car was okay and then the OP No. 1 replaced a new injector in place of the said injector although the said injector was damaged due to using of bad quality of fuel having water in fuel system for a long period. The OP No. 1 in his written version has further stated that he has replaced the injector of the vehicle on 25.09.2012 and issued bill to the complainant as under warranty in spite of fault on the part of the complainant due to water entry into the fuel system of the said vehicle, although it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the warranty as it was not a faulty manufacturing defects or inherent defects. It is also stated that the complainant has suppressed the material fact of the present case that the injector was replaced by the OP No. 1 due to misuse and mishandle by the complainant and also suppressed that the said vehicle became out of order on 25.09.2012 but in fact the vehicle was reported and handed over on 05.09.2012 to the workshop by the complainant. The OP No. 1 in his W/V has further stated that on 08.06.2013 the complainant handed over the said vehicle to the OP no. 1 with previous problem due to further using of same fuel used earlier as well as other necessary repairing and the complainant thereafter contacted with OP no. 1 after few days and the correspondence between the OP No. 1 and 2 made from 17.07.2013 through email regarding further water entry in fuel system by the complainant which may be marked as Annexure B series and the substance of email are that the balance of injector of the said vehicle was out of order due to high water flow inside fuel system fallen into the injector and the OP No. 2 advised the OP No. 1 to that effect that any repair or parts replacement for that concern not covered under warranty and thereafter the service manager of the OP No. 1 sent estimate against the said vehicle. The OP No. 1 has further stated that the letter which was issued on 24.06.2013 by the complainant was false, fabricated and denied by the OP No. 1 and by suppressing the fact in the said letter the complainant wrote the same for wrongful and to veil his fault so replacement of vehicle does not arise. The OP No. 1 further stated the complainant committed fault by using fuel with water in the fuel system which caused damage of the injector and the complainant did not uses vehicle properly, carefully, diligently but used the same negligently, harshly and badly and as the vehicle has no manufacturing defect, the question of replacement as claimed by the complainant does not arise. The OP No. 1 has further stated that there is no cause of action in filing of this case and the case is requires to be dismissed.

On receipt of notice the OP no., 2 appears before this commission through Vokalatnama, filed its written version, denied all the allegations of the complainant. The OP No. 2 has stated that the complainant has filed this case against him on some false allegation by suppressing the actual fact of using poor quality of fuel and for which the Complainant himself is liable. The OP No. 2 further stated that the complainant did not file any expert opinion to establish the manufacturing defect of the vehicle in question and without any expert opinion the claim of the complainant is not tenable. The OP No. 2 has also stated that the OP No. 1 and 2 are separate entity and the complainant is filed this case  against the OP no. 2 as misjoinder of parties/ the complainant has approached the commission not in clean hands and concealed material information and failed to disclose the issue of defective spare parts i.e. injector is due to water entry into the fuel system for a long period due to the mishandling / negligence by the complainant himself and the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the said injector due to water entry but the OP No. 1 being an owner of the showroom obliged to the complainant but as a goodwill gesture replaced the said injector and the OP no. 2 being the manufacturer cannot be held liable for the negligence on the part of the complainant itself. Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 2 referred one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of TATA MOTORS LTD vs ANTONIO PAULO VAZ  and another (Civil Appeal No. 574/2021 wherein it was held that, “………unless the manufacturers knowledge is proved, a decision fastening liability upon the manufacturer would be untenable given that its relationship with the dealer, in the facts of this case, were on principal to principal basis”. The OP no. 2 also referred another decision of NCDRC in Mercedes- Benz India Pvt. Ltd. and another vs Intercard (India) Ltd (First Appeal No, 100 of 2009  and also referred another decision of 2007 SCC417.

Referring those decisions the OP No. 2 has also stated that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 and thereby not entitled to get any order in this regard and also stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant  case as the office of the OP no. 2 is situated in the district of Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu. By filing the W/V the OP No. 2 praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and OPs and on perusal of the Complaint, as well as documents filed by the complainant, written version of the OPs, the following points are to be decided by this Commission.

Points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?

Decision with Reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed Written Deposition in Chief in the form of an Affidavit wherein the Complainant has categorically stated and corroborated the contents of the Complaint. In the written deposition the complainant has stated on which day he purchased the FORD FIGO 1.4 TITANIUM and he also stated the price of that vehicle as well as model no., engine no., chassis no. etc. The complainant has also corroborated the contents of the complaints and stated that the injector of the vehicle became out of order on 25.09.2012 within the warranty period of the vehicle and the OP No. 1 had taken Rs. 1,570/- as cost of the spare parts and a sum of Rs. 3,933/- as labour charges from the complainant. The complainant has also corroborated that the spare parts of the vehicle again became out of order within a period of 9 months from the said date of 25.09.2012 and the matter was informed to the OP No. 1 who then suggested the complainant to hand over the vehicle to the OP showroom and workshop for necessary repair work and for which the complainant handed over the vehicle to the OP No. 1 on 08.06.2013 but the OP no. 1 after taking the vehicle in his custody from the complainant kept mum in respect of defective spare parts and for which the complainant on 24.06.2013 sent one letter by registered post with AD in favour of the OP No. 1 for taking necessary measures in respect of the defective vehicle supplied by the OP 1 and also requested to make arrangement for replacement of the vehicle with new one. In his evidence the complainant has also stated that,  on receipt of the letter of the complainant the OP No. 1 intimated the complainant to deposit the cost of material as well as labour charges as mentioned in the letter dated 25.07.2013 asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 96,429.78/- for the pump fuel and injector ASY-STG 4 and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- towards labour charge totaling of Rs. 1,00,429.78/- along with service tax 12.36% . The complainant has also stated in his evidence that he became surprised when he received the estimated cost which was supplied by the OP No. 1 that the OP No. 1 previously on 25.09.2012 already make replacement of the spare parts i.e. FUEL FILTER ASSY (ONE NOS.), INJECTOR .ASY STG-4 (FOUR QUANTITY) FUEL FILTER ELEMENT –R & R ONE QUANTITY AND FUEL INJECTORS- R&R –ALL. The complainant getting the estimated cost again came to know that, the spare parts which were previously used in the vehicle again became in disorder condition and the complainant became aware that the vehicle which was supplied by the OP No. 1 is completely having some major manufacturing defect in its engine and for the said reason the vehicle is defective since the time of purchase and that’s why the vehicle became out of order in between short period of time or in very short intervals. The complainant has also corroborated his complaint with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and that’s why the OP no. 1 within the period of warranty send the huge amount of estimated cost with a view to avoid the replacement of the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant.

By filing the evidence in the form of an affidavit the complainant has stated that, he has been able to prove this case against the OPs and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. 

To falsify the case of the complainant, OP No. 1 adduced the evidence of Naresh Kumar Agarwal and submitted the examination in chief and also questionnaires. In the written deposition in chief Naresh Kumar Agarwal has corroborated the contents of their written version and has stated that, without filing the mechanical expert report replacement of vehicle order cannot be allowed. In the written deposition Naresh Kumar Agarwal has specifically stated that, the vehicle which was supplied by the OP No. 1 to the complainant was up to the mark as per specific standard and quality and within a period of nine months from the date of 25.09.2012 the vehicle became out of order and on 08.06.2012 the complainant handed over the vehicle to the OP No. 1 for repairing and after getting emails from the complainant the OP No. 1 reported to the OP No. 2 stating inter alia that there was no DTC but while cranking there was metal noise from the injector, the pin point test was found out to be okay after interchanging the injector from other vehicle, the car gain motioned, thereafter the OP No. 2 advised the OP No. 1 to inspect the fuel condition and share the sample photo and also inspection of any blockage in fuel lines, the OP No. 1 reported to the OP No. 2 after observing all directions of Head Expert that there was no blockage in fuel line and also replaced the injector from the demo car for testing and found that the car was okay and the OP No. 1 replaced a new injector in place of the said injector, although the said injector had been damaged due to using of bad quality of fuel having water in fuel system for a long period. The witness Naresh Kumar Agarwal in his deposition has also stated that, the OP No. 1 had replaced a new injector in place of the previous one although the injector had been damaged due to using of bad quality fuel having water in fuel system for a long period. By filing the evidence in chief on behalf of the OP No. 1 he praying for dismissal of the case.

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant submits that, the complainant has been able to prove its case not only through filing of written evidence in the form of an affidavit but also by producing several documents. He further argued that within a short period of time the vehicle which was delivered by the OP No. 1 became out of order and within the warranty period the complainant was compelled to take the vehicle in the showroom of the OP No. 1 for repairing works  and firstly, the spare parts were replaced by the OP No. 1 but again when within 9 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle when it became out of order he took the vehicle before the OP No. 1 on 08.06.2013 for replacement of the spare parts but the OP No. 1 issued a huge amount of estimate asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 96429.78/- towards the spare parts and Rs. 4000/- towards labour charges along with 12.36% service tax though it was within the warranty period. Ld. Advocate of the complainant also argued that, such issuance of estimates disclosing huge amount towards spare parts and labour charges, the OP No. 1 has tried to avoid the complainant for replacement of the vehicle within the warranty period.

Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 during argument submits that the complainant has not been able to prove this case against them by producing evidence as well as documents. He further argued that replacement of any vehicle can be given only in a case when the expert opinion received by this commission/ unless and until the expert opinion is received regarding manufacturing defect the replacement of vehicle could not be done. He also argued that, in the case in hand the complainant has failed to produce any expert opinion to substantiate his claim regarding manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  He also argued that the injector of the vehicle became damaged due to using of bad quality of fuel having water in fuel system for a long period which was done due to negligent act of the complainant.

The specific case of the complainant is that, the vehicle which was supplied by the OP no. 1 to the complainant was not up to the mark as per the specific standard and quality and that’s why the injector of the vehicle became out of order on 25.09.2012 which was within the period of warranty of the vehicle. But the op no 1 had taken a sum of Rs. 1570/- as cost of the spare parts and labour charges of Rs. 3933/-. On the contrary the specific defense case is that, the OP no 1 replaced a new injector in place of the previous one though the same has been damaged due to using of bad quality of fuel having water in the fuel system for a long period. But in this regard the OP’s did not file any documents or expert opinion to substantiate the claim of the OP no 1 that the complainant was allegedly using of bad quality of fuel having water in the fuel system for long time. It is admitted fact by the OP’s that , the OP no. 1 replaced a new injector in the vehicle in place of the previous one and the said replacement of injector within warranty period indicates that there was mechanical defect in the vehicle itself.

It is also admitted by both the parties that the complainant again on 08.06.2013 took the vehicle to the workshop of the OP no1 as per direction of the OP no 1 for necessary repair work but the OP no 1 after taking the vehicle from the complainant kept mum regarding the defective spare parts and finding no other alternative the complainant sent one letter to the OP no 1 for taking measures for the defective spare and also requested the OP no 1 for replacement of the vehicle with new one. It is also admitted fact that, the OP no 1 intimated the complainant to deposit the cost of spare parts and labour charges vide letter dated 25.07.2013 asking to  pay a sum of Rs.1,00,429.78/- for the spare parts as well as labour charges and also asking to pay service tax 12.36% though it was within the warranty period. From the letter dated 25.7.2013 of the OP no 1 it reveals that, again PUMP FUEL INJECTION and INJCETOR ASY-STG-4 needs to be replaced though those similar parts of the vehicle were replaced on 25.09.2012. These types of disorder of any vehicle can be happened within a short period if the vehicle have mechanical defect.

The OP no 1 after taking charge of the vehicle of the complainant in his workshop issued a letter asking the complainant to pay huge amount of money as estimated cost for the new spare parts as well as for labour charges instead of repairing the vehicle free of cost knowing fully well aware that the said vehicle was then within the period of warranty and that type of practice of the OP no1 is nothing but the deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP no 1 who indirectly refused to give proper service to the complainant.

In the case in hand it is the specific defense case of the OP’s that, as the complainant did not submit any expert opinion regarding mechanical fault of the vehicle the question of replacement of the vehicle does not arise. Let us see how far the claim of the OP’s is acceptable in this case or not. From perusal of the evidence of the parties and on perusal of the documents submitted by the parties it came to the knowledge of this commission that, firstly on 25.09.2012 the OP no1 replaced the FUEL FILTER ASSY,INJECTOR ASY STG4,FUEL FILTER ELEMENT R & R AND FUEL INJECTORS-R&R-ALL and again the OP no 1 by sending huge amount of estimated cost for replacement of the same spare parts vide letter dated 25.7.2013 the OP no 1 again admits that those parts became damaged/out of order within the  period of warranty. Accordingly it can safely be presumed that unless and until there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle that type of disorder could not be happened and obviously there is no need for any expert opinion as we are of the view that the admitted fact need not be proved further.

 It is also needless to mentioned here that defect of any kind has to be given the attention by the OP’s in case of any disorder if happens within the warranty period and all steps need to be taken to remove such defects to make product defect free and if it is not possible to remove defects further action has to be taken by way of either replacement of the vehicle or by giving suitable compensation to the complainant so as to meet objectives and purposes for which consumer protection Act had been enacted [2015(4) CPR 63(NC),M/S Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr –vs- I Santhana Rajkumar & ors].

Considering all we are of the view that, the OP’s have tried to thwart the case of the complainant by adducing evidence and by putting questionnaires but has failed to substantiate its defense. Accordingly we are also of the view that the complainant has been able to prove its case against the OP’ and the OP’s are jointly and severally liable to comply the direction of this commission.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That, the instant Consumer Case being in No. 121/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP’s but in part. The OP’s  are  directed either to replace the vehicle of the complainant by giving a new vehicle of the same make to the complainant or in alternative may make payment of the vehicle as payment receipt No.1728 dated 23.04.2012 i.e. Rs. 6,57,375/-(Rupees Six lakh fifty seven thousand three hundred and seventy five) only. The OP’s are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) only to the complainant for deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP’s as well for causing mental pain, agony and sufferings by the OP’s towards the  complainant. The OP’s are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainant towards cost of the legal proceedings and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only in the Consumer legal Aid account of this commission.

 The OPs are also directed to pay interest @4% per annum to the complainant on the awarded amount with effect from the date of filing of this case till making payment of the entire amount. The OP’s are directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which the complainant will have the liberty to take proper steps as per law.

 Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.