BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 972 of 10.11.2010 

                                                Decided on:          19.9.2011

Som Nath Pathania son of Late Sh.Harbans Lal, resident of # 2165, Phase II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 M/s Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. Plot No.B-19, M.I.D.C., Ranjangaon Industrial Area, Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirpur-4122109( Maharashtra) through its Managing Director/ Head.

2.                 M/s Hemant Goyal Motors(P) Ltd. Rajpura Road, Patiala, through its Partner/Proprietor/Manager/Head.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Parveen Sharma, Advocate

For opposite parties:     None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant purchased the car make Fiat Grande Punto Active(PT) colour –Bossa Nova White, Model 2010, bearing temporary registration No.PB-11-AN-7185 from op no.2 vide bill no.459 dated 31.8.2010, the car having been manufactured by op no.1.

2.       Only one day after the purchasing of the car, the rear window lock of the car stopped functioning. The bumper rubber was loose and light button was not working. The complainant approached op no.2 who changed the light button and repaired window lock on 2.9.2010 having charged the amount from t5he complainant.

3.       In the first week of October 2010, the paint of the car started losing, its grip near the mud flaps of all the tyres, thereby the colour having turned yellowish near the mud flaps. At this the complainant approached op no.2 and showed the said paint of the car. Op no.2 assured the complainant to do the needful and asked the complainant to visit after a gap of 1-2 days. The complainant had also written letter dated 9.10.2010 to op no.2 and requested to replace the car.

4.       The complainant made a complaint at Toll Free No.1800 2095 556 of op no.1 which was received by one Pruful Kumar and the complainant apprised him about the problem in the car vide complaint No.1060 4961 371.The complainant had also sent e-mail to the ops but to no effect.

5.       Again the complainant visited op no.2 and who instead of replacing the car handed over a letter through a representative of op no.2 saying that the car will not be replaced and that they can just repaint the car but the complainant did not care for the same. Again the complainant made a call at the aforesaid Toll Free No. and up dated his complaint on 11.10.2010, which was received by Mr.Amit but the complainant failed to get any response. Again on 15.10.2010, the complainant made a call at the aforesaid toll free number which was attended to by Mr.Pruful Kumar who disclosed that his previous complaint had been closed and the complainant was issued fresh complaint no.1-1065/1642211 and the complainant was assured that the ops will replace the car very soon.

6.       The complainant had been visiting op no.2 for the replacement of the car or the refund of the car but the ops had been harassing the complainant. Again the complainant made a telephonic call at no.0124 2805142 on 16.10.2010 to the Regional office of op no.1 which was attended to by one Ms.Somya and the complainant was issued complaint No.1610 10 S02 and the call was diverted to Mr.Karun Grover who assured the complainant that he will replace the car of the complainant with new one but to no effect. The complainant again made a call on 18.10.2010 in the Regional office which was attended to by one Amit Kumar but to no effect.

7.       Then it is averred that the complainant had written letter dated 19.10.2009 to op no.2 for the replacement of the car. Similarly the complainant made a call to op no.2 on the said date which was attended to by Ms Somya in the Regional office and he was issued complaint No.1800 10801 but even then the car was not replaced.

8.       The complainant has made a reference of similar complaints made through mobile phone no., telephone etc. It is also averred that on 21.10.2010 when the complainant visited the office of  op no.2, that he was asked that they will replace the car in case the complainant pays Rs.25000/- as the depreciation charges but the complainant told that the car was still in the warranty period. Having made a number of attempts and the complainant having failed to get his remedy redressed, he approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to replace his car with new one or to refund him the amount of Rs.4,36,261/- as the price of the car, Rs.5000/- spent by the complainant in installing the center locking, Rs.10300/- having been spent by him for  installing the music system; to pay  Rs.2lacs as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops; to pay  Rs. one lac on account of unfair trade practice practised by ops and to pay him Rs.25000/- as the costs of the complaint.

9.       On notice only op no.2 appeared whereas op no.1 was proceeded exparte.

10.     In the written statement filed by op no.1 it is admitted that the complainant had purchased car make Fiat Grande Punto from it. It is denied, if op no.2 received the car on 9.10.2010 in connection with any door locking problem and the same was attended to by the op.

11.     Similarly, it is averred by the ops that no assurance was ever given by it that the car will be replaced with new one. This op has raised the objections that complicated question of facts and law being involved in the complaint, only civil court can determine the matter and the jurisdiction of the Forum is barred. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

12.     In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.C1 his sworn affidavit, alongwith documents, Exs.C2 to C24 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

13.     On the other hand, on behalf of the contesting op, its learned counsel produced in evidence, Ex.R1 the sworn affidavit of Satish Sharda, General Manager of op no.2 and closed the evidence.

14.     The complainant filed the written arguments.We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the complainant none having appeared on behalf of op no.2 and gone through the evidence on record.

15.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the colour of the car had become yellowish near the flappers of all the tyres and that he requested op no.2 as also op no.1 to replace the car but they failed to do so and accordingly the complainant has described the act of the ops to be a deficiency of service and wanted his car to be replaced with new one or to refund him the price of the car. The complainant has produced in evidence the photographs Exs.C8 to C16 of the car bearing temporary registration No.PB 11 AN 7185 showing the colour of the  paint having become yellowish near the flappers of the tyres.

16.     The complainant has not obtained any report from an expert belonging in the work of painting of the vehicle who could give an opinion that the colour of the car along the flappers has gone yellowish because of a sub standard material used in painting the car.

17.     Having seen the photograph,Ex.C16 giving a one look of the paint of the car we were curious to have a first hand glance of the car to appreciate the problem and at our direction, the learned counsel for the complainant got the vehicle produced. We examined the car and found that the paint of the car has gone yellowish because of sub standard rubber flappers having been used. A small portion of the car near the flappers has gone yellowish and that is because of the sub standard flappers. Otherwise the entire car is giving a very good look in respect of its paint. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has got to remove the flappers with flappers of good quality. The yellowish colour on the paint will easily be removed with the help of stain remover like collin sprey or a good detergent.

18.     We really fail to see as to how the complainant described the small portion of the car along the  flappers having gone yellowish to be a manufacturing defect. Moreover, op no.2 was willing to find out one or the other resolution to the problem as would appear from the letter,Ex.C17 received by the complainant from op no.2 having written, “Sir, as per our discussion, we provided you the resolution to the paint issue. But it is observed that you do not agree to the resolution. But sir, we still request you to bring your vehicle alongwith this  letter as soon as possible to resolve the matter” , but the complainant does not seem to have responded to the letter and the complainant appeared adamant in getting his car replaced but as discussed earlier we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President