This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 3.1.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed the same against   Opposite Parties No. 3&4.

2                             Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased a new Hyundai Santro car on 19/10/2009 from “Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd.”, one of the Hyundai Dealers.  The 1st service of the car was got done as per schedule on 09/12/2009 from the said service centre.  It was stated that on 14/07/2010, the Complainant was approached by one Mr. Pankaj (Opposite Party  No.2), Campaign Organizer of Opposite Party  No.1, with a Platinum offer in the sum of Rs.600/- for getting his Santro car serviced from Opposite Party  No.1. A booklet, containing various coupons, for various free offers was shown to him, like one time vehicle check-up, after four months, one time wheel alignment after 6 months, car wash etc. The Complainant purchased the booklet by paying Rs.600/- in cash. It was further stated that on 21/07/2010, when the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, to avail of the 2nd free service of his car, he was surprised when it refused to do the same, stating that since 9 months had expired, from the purchase of car, the entitlement for 2nd free service was over. It was further stated that, as per service schedule of Hyundai Company, the Complainant was entitled to three free services within a period of one year, from the date of purchase of his Car from any Hyundai Dealer/ Authorized Service Centre.  Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd. from where he had purchased his car. No objection was raised for delay of the 2nd free service by this dealer. The Complainant then sent an e-mail to the Customer Care Centre of Hyundai Company on 23/07/2010, followed by a number of other e-mails, with his complaint for unfair trade practice of Opposite Party  No.1. On 11.10.2010, the complainant, approached Opposite Party No.1 with a request to wash his car, on the basis of coupons contained in the booklet, purchased by him from it, but it refused to wash the car and provide him service, on a flimsy ground, depicted in para No.8 of the complaint. The complainant then requested for the refund of Rs.600/- spent by him for purchasing the booklet, containing the coupons, besides compensation. Despite exchange of many e-mails, between the parties, the grievance of the Complainant, was not redressed, by the   Opposite Parties, but they only offered refund of Rs.600/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the   Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3                             Reply was filed by Opposite Party-1, wherein, it was stated that it was always ready and willing to perform the services hired by the Complainant. It was further stated that when the Complainant approached the Service Centre of Opposite Party  No.1, for service of his Santro car, the car service was three months overdue, and the scrutiny of the service documents, revealed that, in the event the service was performed, the Complainant would be at risk of loosing his car warranty, as per the terms & conditions imposed, at the time of purchase, by the Manufacturer. It was further stated that the Complainant, in fact, misinterpreted the advice given to him. It was further stated that Opposite Party  No.1 sent written, as well as oral communications to the Complainant to accept the service within the guidelines, imposed by the Manufacturer. Not only this, Opposite Party  No.1, also offered a full refund of Rs.600/- spent by the complainant.  Denying all other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1, prayed for dismissal of the complaint, with costs.

4                             On the prayer of the learned counsel for the Complainant, the name of Opposite Party  No.2 was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 12.10.2011.

5                             In their joint replies,  Opposite Parties No. 3 & 4, denied all the allegations, levelled by the Complainant, as the Complainant had no legal or valid cause of action, for initiating the present proceedings. It was stated that, at the time of purchase of the car the complainant was provided three free service coupons, and he had availed of all the free services, as per warranty from them. It was further stated that the answering   Opposite Parties had nothing to do with the coupons, issued by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant, as the same were purely a business offer by Opposite Party No.1, to him.  It was further stated that the complainant made a complaint that Opposite Party No.1 was not entertaining the service coupons, provided by it, on charges. The answering Opposite Parties had asked Opposite Party  No.1, to resolve the issue, with the Complainant. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the answering   Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

6                             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7                             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum, disposed of the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, and dismissed the same against   Opposite Parties No. 3&4, as stated, in the opening para of this order

8                             Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal. 

9                             We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have perused the record, carefully.

10                        The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that on 14.7.2010, he bought platinum offer coupons, for Rs.600/- from the representative of Opposite Party No.1, for getting service of his car. On 21.7.2010, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, for service of his car, but it refused the same, on the ground, that since 9 months had expired from the purchase of the car, the entitlement for second service was over. Thereafter, he approached Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd. from where the car was purchased, which did the second free service without any objection. On 23.7.2010 the complainant sent an Email to the Customer Care Centre of Hyundai Company. It was further submitted that on 11.10.2010, the complainant took the car to respondent/Opposite Party No.1 for washing the same and providing service, on the basis of coupons, purchased by him, but it refused to do so, on flimsy ground. Thereafter filed a complaint, alleging that Opposite Party no.1, indulged into unfair trade practice and was deficient in rendering service and requested for refund of Rs.600/-, which he spent on the purchase of the booklet of coupons from Opposite Party  No.1, alongwith compensation.

11                       On the Contrary, the learned Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, submitted that when the complainant approached it, for service of the car, on the perusal of the service documents, it was found that the  second service was three months overdue, and the limitation on the same imposed by the concerned manufacturer had in fact expired. Opposite Party No.1 brought this to the notice of the complainant that, in the event the service was performed, he would be at risk of losing his car warranty, as per the terms and conditions imposed at the time of purchase by the manufacturer. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.1, in order to redress his grievance, offered him, either to accept the services within the guidelines imposed or take a full refund of the money spent on the coupons, but he instead of accepting the same, preferred to file a complaint before the District Forum.

12                       Learned Counsel for Opposite Parties No. 3&4 submitted that the Opposite Parties No. 3&4 had nothing to do with the coupons, issued by Opposite Party No.1, and they asked Opposite Party NO.1 to resolve the issue with the complainant. He further argued that, on the asking of  Opposite Parties No. 3&4, Opposite Party No.1 offered the complainant to take Rs.600/- but he refused to accept the same. He further submitted that  the complainant had availed of all the three free service coupons provided by Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd., at the time of purchase of car, to his full satisfaction.  

13                       In the three free service coupons, provided to the complainant by Charisma Gold Wheels (P) Ltd., at the time of purchase of car, placed, on record, at page Nos. 199, 201 and 203, the kilometers and the due time for the first, second and third free services, have been categorically mentioned, which have also been depicted in the impugned order of the District Forum by way of a comparative chart in para 8. Undoubtedly, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, after crossing the limit of kilometers, and also after the expiry of the stipulated period for service, which is apparent from the copies of the free service coupons, placed on record, hence, we do not find that Opposite Party no.1 was guilty of unfair trade practice by refusing to do the second free service and advising him to approach Charisma Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd. from where the car was purchased.

14                       But, at the same time, the fact cannot be ignored that when on 11.10.2010, the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.1, and asked to wash the car, against the coupons, provided by it (i.e. platinum offer), which he purchased from it, by paying Rs.600/-, Opposite Party No.1 refused to provide any service, by stating that the coupons contained in the booklet issued by Opposite Party No.1, were valid only, if he got the first welcome offer, by giving first paid service of his car,  whereas, at the time of purchase of the said coupons, Opposite Party No.2, assured him that he could avail of all the coupons at any time, during two years time, from the purchase of the same.  However, this contention of the complainant, was not rebutted by Opposite Party No.1. Even no document regarding the same was produced by it. Thus, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party No.1, was deficient, in rendering service, by refusing to wash the car, which caused a lot of harassment to the complainant. The complainant is definitely entitled to compensation, on account of mental agony, and physical harassment.  However, during the course of arguments, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party No. 1, stated, at the bar that it was still ready to refund Rs.600/- alongwith interest, if the complainant was willing to accept the same.   

15                       In view of the above discussion, we find merit, in this appeal, and the same is allowed with costs, and the order of the District Forum is modified in the following manner;

i.                   Respondent/Opposite Party no.1 is directed to refund Rs.600/- alongwith interest @9% from the date of purchase of booklet (containing coupons) namely platinum offer, referred to above by complainant i.e.14.7.2010, from it.

ii.                 Respondent/Opposite Party no.1 shall pay to the complainant Rs.3000/- on account of compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment..

iii.              Respondent/Opposite Party No.1, shall pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/-

16.              The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by respondent/Opposite Party No.1, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% P.A., on the amounts, awarded above, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs. 

17.              As in the complaint case, on the prayer of the Counsel for the complainant, the name of the respondent/Opposite Party no.2 was deleted, by the District Forum, vide its order dated 12.10.2011, hence appeal against him stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

18.              Appeal against respondents/Opposite Parties No. 3&4  is dismissed with no order as to costs, as Opposite Party No.1 has already offered to refund the price of coupons with interest.

 19.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.