Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/242

Prabha Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ford India Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 242 of 07.06.2022.

Date of Decision            :   06.12.2022.

 

Mrs. Prabha Sood & Mr.Aditya Sood, 142 Green Park, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainants

                                                         Versus

1. Ford India Private Limited, having its registered address at S.P. Koil Post, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu-603204, through its authorized dealers.

2. M/s Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited), having its registered office at village Karimpur, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-141101.

3. M/s Bhagat Ford, having its office at No.658, GT Road, Industrial Area, Ludhiana-141003.

 

…..Opposite parties

 

 

                    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh. P.S. Ghumman, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Complaint not admitted vide order dated 05.02.2018.

 

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 24.07.2017, the complainant purchased one Ford Ecosport Platinum Edition (Top-end variant) bearing Chassis/VIN No.MAJAXXMRKAHP42447 and Engine No.HP42447. The complainant paid a booking amount of Rs.5000/- and a down payment of Rs.1,89,000/- from her saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank. The complainant also obtained a loan of Rs.9,91,386/- from Axis Bank directly paid by Axis Bank to the OP2. The complainant further paid a sum of Rs.19,581/- in cash for insurance of the car to M/s New India Assurance Company. The car was allotted registration No.PB-10-GJ-5807 by the OP2 on the same day. The car was fitted with Diamond-cut 17 inch alloy wheels and Apollo tyres of 205/50r17 size.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that on 27.07.2017, the complainant came to know about the defect in the car when it met with an accident. The complainant had gone to visit her relative near Amritsar and on the way back, the car hit a pot hole when it was being driven at a speed of 85-90 KMPH. As a result, suddenly the right hand front tyre got burst. The left hand front tyre also bulged having been hit upon a pot hole. At that time, the car had run just 678 KMs. After the accident, the complainant contacted OP2 who told that the OP1 was not responsible for the tyres and Apollo Engineers would inspect and give the replacement. After 3-4 days, the complainant took the car to Agarwal Tyres, an Apollo Dealer for inspection. After checking, the engineer gave a report that the tyres have been damaged due to external impact, which is not covered under the warranty policy. The Apollo team refused to replace the tyres. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP2 once again and they were informed that the matter would be taken up with the management and if the company approved, they would replace both tyres. In the meanwhile, the complainant kept driving the car with swollen tyre.

3.                It is further alleged that after getting the replacement of two tyres, on 24.09.2017, another similar accident took place on Ferozepur Road, when the complainant was coming back from Moga. The car again hit upon a small pot hole when it was being driven at a speed of 90 KMPH and the right hand front tyre again got burst. At that time, the complainant herself was driving the car. The complainant replaced the burst tyre with a spare tyre. The next morning, when the tyre was checked, it had a same cut on the sidewall as had happened at the time of previous accident. It was not possible ordinarily that the same side tyre would burst twice under the similar conditions on two different roads with different drivers. At the time of second accident, the car had run just 3654 KMs only. Since two accidents of similar nature took place within a period of two months, it was suspected that it had something to do with the tyres. The complainant sent an email to the Ford Customer care on 25.09.2017 and its Directors M.Anuragh and D.Dixit giving the complete details of the two accidents. The complainant was again told to wait for inspection by Apollo Engineers and the team of OP2 refused to replace the tyres. Instead they only took the  burst tyre for inspection. After a week, the complainant received a call from the OP2 saying that Apollo has again refused replacement but they are trying to get approval from their management for replacement of tyres at their own cost. The son of the complainant had inquired from the multiple vendors including New Bedi Tyre Plaza, M/s Bakshisons , M/s Monga Tyres Pvt. Ltd., who are the authorized dealers of branded tyres. On inquiry, it was found that these vendors have never sold 205/50r17 size tyres which were fitted in the car as this size was very low profile and highly unsuitable for 17 inch wheels. The son of the complainant was informed by the other dealers that this size was bound to burst as 17 inch wheels require a little higher profile tyre such as 215/55r17 or 225/50r17. Surprisingly, the Apollo dealer was not aware of this size being distributed by the company. Thereafter, the complainant was informed that the OP2 would replace only one damaged tyre and no other brand tyre can be used as it would nullify the warranty of the suspension. As a matter of fact, the Apollo brand is one of the cheapest low quality brands of tyres in the market and the wrong size of tyres were being supplied directly to OP2 by Apollo Tyres, which were not distributed in the market. Eventually the complainant accepted the replacement of a single tyre of the same brand on 13.10.2017.

4.                It is further alleged in the complaint that on 04.11.2017, the complainant drove the car to Jalandhar and on the way back, her son noticed that the right hand front tyre had swollen due to impact of a pot hole. At that time, the car was being driven at a speed of 85-90 KMPH. The son of the complainant shared a photo of the tyre with the Service Manager over Whatsapp and also sent an email to the customer care. OP2 was requested to replace all the five tyres with a reputed brand or in the alternative the cost of the car be refunded to the complainant. After following up the matter for three months, the OP2 replaced all the five tyres with tyres of  the same Apollo Tyres. At that time, the car had run only had recorded 5366 KMs. Thereafter, the complainant thought that the problem would not recur in future. However, on 28.11.2017, when the complainant and her younger son Devan Sood were coming back from Moga, the car again hit upon a small pot hole. The complainant was shocked to see that the right hand front tyre got burst and the alloy wheel also split into two pieces. It was a miraculous escape for the complainant and her son otherwise they could have lost their lives in the accident. After the accident, the broken alloy wheel could not be taken out. As a result, the roadside assistance of Ford India was called. The driver of the towing van offered to replace the broken wheel but the complainant refused as she wanted OP2 to see the extent of the damages first hand. In the meantime, while waiting for the towing van, the complainant’s son recorded a video showing the depth and size of the pot hole and the extent of damage caused to the tyre and alloy wheel. It was fourth similar accident within a period of just 4 months and the car had run just 6124 KMs. Feeling frustrated, the complainant decided to return the car which was towed by the roadside assistance on 28.11.2017 and shockingly it was delivered to Bhagat Ford (OP3). In fact, there was a serious problem in the suspension of the car which had resulted in the accident, but the OPs remained defiant and refused to acknowledge that there was a manufacturing defect in the car or in the tyres. However, the OPs offered to replace all the five tyres with tyres of Bridgestone brand, though the complainant had requested in the email dated 29.11.2017 for refund the cost of the car with punitive damages. Since the date of last accident, the car has been in possession of the OP3 and the complainant has been paying the EMIs regularly to the bank and since 29.11.2017, the complainant had been requesting the Ops to refund the cost of the car. The complainant has further come to know that Ford Company had sold three cars of the same variant in the year 2017 and the said cars were also  having the similar problems which clearly indicates that there has been a serious fault in the car which the OPs are not willing to accept. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the total amount of Rs.12,05,237/- to the complainant along with interest @8.42% per annum and the OPs be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lac as punitive damages for selling a faulty car to the complainant.

5.               The complaint was not admitted as against as the OP3 i.e. M/s. Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited) having its registered office at Village Karipur, Ferozepur Road Ludhiana at the time of preliminary hearing.

6.               Upon notice of the earlier complaint, OP1 and OP2 apppeared. In the written statement filed by the OP1 Ford India Private Limited, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable as the only grievance of the complainant is that the car was fitted with cheap inferior quality tyres which are unable to bear the impact of potholes at a high speed. However, this objection is not sustainable as it is a matter of common knowledge that driving carelessly over a pothole can cause an immediate tyre blowout due to impact alone. Moreover, the complainant cannot be allowed to assume the role of an automobile engineer for alleging that the 17 inch wheel of the car should not have been fitted with ‘205/50 r 17’ size tyre. According to the OP1, it is the industry known phenomenon that for a 17 inch wheel the best tyre size is 205/50R17. Besides, the car was admittedly being driven at a high speed in contravention of the permitted speed limits. As per section 112(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Governor of Punjab vide notification dated 27.09.2007 has fixed the maximum speed limit on the National Highways and State Highways as 80 KMPH respectively and the same as 50 KMPH for municipal areas. It has further been alleged that the complainant has failed to establish that a particular kind of defect falling within the purview of inherent/manufacturing defect has persisted in the vehicle. The warranty obligation of the manufacturer is only to the extent of repair or replacement of the part which is proved to be suffering from any manufacturing defect within the limits of the warranty through expert evidence. Moreover, the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the car and has merely complained alleged defect in the tyres manufactured by Apollo Tyres Limited. It has further been pleaded that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP1 and the OP1 comes into the picture only when there is a manufacturing defect in the car. It has further been pleaded that the complainant appears to have misunderstood the warranty which only covers the repairs or replacement of any such defect which might occur due to faulty manufacture or material within the warranty period. The warranty does not cover the normal maintenance services and the replacement of routine service items which are subject to normal wear and tear. Moreover, the complaint involves several disputed questions of fact and law which requires detailed oral and documentary evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings and for the dispute raised by the complainant, only Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the present complaint. Moreover, the car was admittedly being driven in willful defiance of the terms and conditions as prescribed under the Owner’s Manual. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

7.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of the OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OP2. The vehicle is admittedly lying with M/s Bhagat Ford(OP3) and not with the OP2. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP2. It was duly mentioned in the document of warranty, which was also signed by the complainant, that battery, audio system, tyres in original and tubes equipped on ford vehicles are warranted directly by the respective manufacturers and not by the Ford company. It has been so mentioned in the warranty on page no.5 at serial no.21 but despite that the complainant has not impleaded Apollo Tyres as a party in the present complaint. Moreover, the Apollo Tyres gave a product inspection report whereby it was found that the tyre was busted due to outside impact and the same was not a manufacturing fault in the tyre. Despite that the tyres were replaced as a goodwill gesture on the instruction of the Ford India Limited(OP1). The duty of the OP2 is only to sell the vehicle manufactured by the OP1 and to do the service of the vehicle as per rules. If there was any problem found in the tyres of the vehicles, it was to be addressed by the OP1 and not the OP2. Moreover, the tyres, which have been damaged due to the external impact, are not covered under the warranty. The driving habits of the owner of the vehicle are responsible for the bulging and bursting of the tyres. On merits, it has been denied that the speed of the vehicle was around at 85-90 KMPS at the time when the car hit a pot hole. According to the OP2, the vehicle was being driven rashly at a very high speed. Moreover, the tyre was not under the warranty, but still best services were provided by the OP2. It has further been denied if there is any serious fault in the car which the OPs are not willing to accept. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

8.                In support of their claim, the complainants tendered their joint affidavit Ex. CA in which they reiterated the allegations as mentioned in the complaint along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6 and closed the evidence. After remand back of the case to this Commission to decide the same afresh, the complainants summons Sh. Manoj Verma, Diagnostics Expert cum Trainer who submitted his affidavit Ex. CA1 along with documents Ex. C7 to Ex. C17 and expert opinion cum report on inspection of vehicle as Ex. C18.

9.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Mirza Qaiser Iqbal Beg, Authorized Signatory of OP1 along with documents Ex.DW-R1/1 to Ex.DW-R1/8 and closed the evidence.

10.              Similarly, OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Ravinder Singh, Service Manager of Garyson Auto Pvt. Ltd along with documents Ex.RW2/A to Ex.RW2/D.

11.              Our predecessors after hearing the arguments in complaint case No.45 of 2018 and decided the same on 28.05.2021 on the following terms-

‘As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed to the extent that the OPs are directed to return the car after replacing all the tyres of the car along with front right rim/alloy wheel at zero costs. OPs shall further pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) and costs of litigation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.’

 

11.              Aggrieved of the order, the complainants preferred an appeal No.260 of 2021 and opposite partyNo.1 also preferred an appeal No.358 of 2021 against the said order dated 28.05.2021 before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh.

12.              The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its order dated 29.04.2022 disposed of both the appeals, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

‘20.             Accordingly, the appeal i.e. First Appeal No.358 of 2021 filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the District Commission is set aside. First Appeal No.260 of 2021 filed by the appellant(s)/complainant(s) stands disposed of. The case is remanded to the District Commission. The parties are at liberty to implead M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd., the manufacture of tyres fitted in the car in dispute, as party in the complaint by moving appropriate application before the District Commission. The parties would also be at liberty to produce any other evidence, including expert opinion, in support of their pleas. Thereafter, the District Commission shall decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to the parties of being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.’

 

13.              The parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 31.05.2022. On 31.05.2022, the complainants put their appearance through counsel Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate who stated at bar that he wants to file application for impleading M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited as party in the complaint. Rest of the parties did not put in appearance on 31.05.2022. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance on 15.06.2022 through Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate but none turned up for opposite party No.2.  On 12.07.2022, the counsel for the complainant suffered statement that he did not want to file application for impleading M/s. Apollo Tyres as party in this case for the time being with liberty to file the same, if requires after receipt of the expert report.

14.              That while perusing the file, it came to notice of this Commission that opposite party No.2 i.e. M/s. Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited) has not put in appearance but inadvertently presence of Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate was being marked on behalf of opposite party No.2. However, Sh. Suresh Shounik stated at bar that he has not been engaged by opposite party No.2. So in order to procure presence of opposite party No.2, vide order dated 10.11.2022, notice was ordered to be issued to M/s. Imperial Ford (Garyson Auto Private Limited) on its address and also through counsel who was earlier representing opposite party No.2. Sh. P.S. Ghumman, Advocate appeared on 21.11.2022 and filed power of attorney on behalf of opposite party No.2 and on 25.11.2022 suffered statement that OP2 does not want to produce any other evidence and earlier evidence of OP2 may be considered.

15.              The counsel for the complainant filed an application to appoint Manoj Verma, Diagnostics Expert cum Trainer, Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana as an expert to inspect the vehicle. On 19.07.2022, application was allowed and Sh. Manoj Kumar directed to visit the spot.

16.              The report of expert Ex. C18 was tendered in evidence by Sh. Manoj Kumar along with his affidavit Ex. CA1 as well as documents Ex. C7 i.e. identity card of Sh. Manoj Kumar and Ex. C8 to Ex. C17 photographs of the car in question. Mr. Manoj Kumar presented himself to be a Diagnostics Expert-cum-Trainer (DET) and a qualified technician having an experience of over 20 years. He conducted a detailed inspection on 12.07.2022 in the presence and assistance of Mr. Aditya Sood, co-complainant and the representative of opposite party No.2 and 3. However, no one was present on behalf of opposite party No.1. As per report of the expert, the vehicle No.PB-10-GJ-5807 was parked in an open space behind the workshop in a shed for the last few years and the vehicle was in an average physical condition with signs of wear and tear due to weather conditions. No electrical system could be checked because the battery was non-functional at the time of the inspection. There was a visible dent on the front LHS fender and the front LHS door strip was broken. The spare tire & alloy wheel were missing, it was informed that the last accident on 28.11.2017 broke the front RHS tire & alloy due to which the spare was installed in its place and the damaged tire & alloy wheel kept aside. However, the damages tire & alloy wheel were not shown to him. The interiors were also in average condition, with signs of wear & tear due to overtime accumulation of dust. The expert also observed that regarding the existence of manufacturing defect, the same could not be verified by just physical inspection as it could be confirmed only after checking ride quality and engine performance but the vehicle was not in a drivable condition. He also observed that considering the size of alloy wheels (17 inches), its design and construction this is not suitable for this type of vehicle. Finally in para No.10 of his report, it was opined by the expert that there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the alloy wheels due to which the tire size supplied with the vehicle as standard fitment do not comply with the shock observing capacity of the vehicle’s suspension & shock observers. Changing of alloy wheels will render the vehicle’s distinguishing feature non-existent. Possibility of an inherent defect in the vehicle cannot be ruled out as the ride quality & engine performance of the vehicle could not be tested during this inspection due to un-drivable condition of the vehicle.

17.              Opposite party No.1 has chosen to file the objections to the report of the expert stating the same mis-conceived and baseless as the shock absorbers are an integral part of a vehicle’s suspension and is designed to absorb or dampen the compression and rebound the springs and suspension and the wheels are designed to carry the gross weight of the vehicle and have no bearing on the suspension design performance. Further the vehicle in question along with 17” tire had been absolutely designed and tested as per Global Design and Evaluation Standards. The inspection conducted by the expert is incomplete as the vehicle was kept in bad condition and the engine could not be started because of which the test drive could not be happened. He has conducted just physical inspection of the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 prayed that since the inspection report of expert is without any substantive inspection and cannot be relied upon to prove any manufacturing defect.

18.              Initially the counsel for the complainant was inclined to move an appropriate application to implead M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited, the manufacturer of tyres fitted in the car in dispute but later on the counsel for the complainants did not file the same by making a statement. Both the opposite parties also did not move any application to implead M/s. Apollo Tyres Limited. Now this Commission proceeds to decide the complaint in view of the existing parties.

19.              The Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh had also granted liberty to the parties to produce any other evidence including the expert opinion in support of their pleadings. Barring the report, an expert no fresh or other evidence has been lead by the parties hereto despite have opportunities.

20.              We have given thoughtful consideration to rival contention of counsel for the parties and have examined evidence on record including the expert report. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

 

 

The definition is wide enough to include any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard. A seller is under legal obligation to maintain goods free from any defect. However, it is for the consumer to prove that the product purchased by him suffers from any kind of such defect, so to avail remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  In order to discharge its initial onus, the counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the final opinion of expert as mentioned in para no.10 of the report Ex. C18. However, it may be noticed that Mr. Manoj Kumar was almost a unanimous choice to be appointed as technical expert and the vehicle as whose could not be ascertained due to non-touching of engine and technical inspect turned out be just a physical inspection. The expert did not make any further request either to the Commission or to the opposite parties for making it fully functional so that the actual defect, if any, could be detected. Rather after admitting the poor and un-drivable condition of the vehicle, he just gave a vague and self contradictory opinion that the possibility of inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle, cannot be ruled out. Further he went on to opine there is an inherent manufacturing defect in the alloy wheel due to which the tyres size supplied with the vehicle as standard fitment do not comply with shock absorbing capacity of the vehicle suspension and shock absorbers. The only apprehension of the expert is that changing of alloy wheels will render the vehicle’s distinguishing features non-existent. Apprehension of the expert is totally misplaced as safety of person is of paramount importance.

21.              The counsel for the opposite parties contended that as and when the complainants brought the matter into notice of the opposite parties with regard to developing of snag on 27.07.2019, 24.09.2017, 04.11.2017, the opposite parties as a goodwill gesture acted promptedly and replaced the damaged tires. Even on 28.11.2017, when the vehicle was towed away with the road side assistance, the opposite parties also offered five tyres of another brand to the complainants but the complainants are adamant for the replacement of the vehicle or refund of entire money and they have blown the minor defect out of proportion. In fact, they have got no cause of action to file the present complaint and same has been filed just to malign the reputation of the opposite parties. Had there been manufacturing defect in the car, it would not have been covered 6124 Kms. The contentions of the opposite parties look fanciful and the person who had purchased a new vehicle is not expected to visit the workshop again and again to get the defect removed. Despite the replacement of the tires by the opposite parties, the defect has not been fully removed and as such, the complainant has right to file the present complaint.

22.              In C.N. Ananthram Vs M/s. Fiat India Ltd. and others 2010 (4) CPJ 56 passed by the Hon’ble Spreme Court of India whereby the complainant sought replacement or full refund of the amount along with interest for “defect in the engine of the vehicle”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the replacement of the defective engine with new engine would suffice. Further, in Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Sharad and others in 2016 (SCC) NCDRC 1600 whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that whether the vehicle purchased by the complainant suffered certain defects and also used for considerable kilometers, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has held that a new vehicle cannot be replaced and defective part of old vehicle has to be replaced.

23.              In the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the act and conduct of the complainants is also required to be taken into consideration. On 28.11.2017, the vehicle lastly developed a snag and the vehicle was got towed away in the premises of opposite party No.3 by the complainants with the road side assistance facility. Thereafter, the complainants did not make any efforts to get the repairs effective rather they virtually abandoned the vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that the opposite parties also make any sincere efforts to do the repair of the vehicle or to get in touch with the complainants. On this count, both the parties are responsible for further deterioration of the condition of the vehicle. The report of the expert also confirms the deteriorated condition of the vehicle due to its parking in open area in the premises of opposite party No.3.

24.              This Commission is of the considered view that unless and until the vehicle is ordered to be repaired for making it roadworthy lis between the parties will not come to its end. So opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to get the vehicle in question comprehensively repaired so to make it roadworthy (inclusive of replacement of defective rim) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The cost of repair shall be construed a compensation to the complainants. However, litigation expenses is assessed to be Rs.10,000/-.

25.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to get the vehicle in question comprehensively repaired so to make it roadworthy (inclusive of replacement of defective rim) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The cost of repair shall be construed as compensation to the complainants. However, opposite party No.1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants as litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

Prabha Sood Vs Ford India                         CC/18/45

 

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh. Suresh Shounik, Advocate for the OP1.

Sh. P.S. Ghumman, Advocate for OP2.

Complaint against OP3 not admitted.

                                               

                                Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to get the vehicle in question comprehensively repaired so to make it roadworthy (inclusive of replacement of defective rim) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The cost of repair shall be construed as compensation to the complainants. However, opposite party No.1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainants as litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                                      Member                            President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.