ORDER
Per Nipur Chandna , Member

The complainant purchased a vehicle no. DL 5CH 8753 Ecco Maruti Car
from OP1 on 12/10/2011.  It is alleged by the complainant that there
were some problems in the engine of the said vehicle, hence the
complainant left the said vehicle at the workshop of OP2 on 29/8/2012.
The official of the OP2 assured the complainant that the said vehicle
will be delivered within 20 days.  It is further alleged by the
complainant that despite promise of 20 days, the OP failed to deliver
the vehicle in time. Moreover, when the complainant went to take the
delivery of the vehicle in the last week of October 2012, the official
of the OP demanded Rs. 30,000/- whereas at the initial stage they had
demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only and the vehicle was also not in OK
condition.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part
of the OP and approached this forum for redressal of his grievance.
The OP contested the complaint and filed a written statement.  They
have  denied any deficiency on their part and have prayed for the
dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder to reiterate the facts as
pleaded in the complaint.
The complainant has filed evidence by way of his own affidavit.  He
has placed on record a copy of the demand repair and job  instruction
capturing sheet dated 29/8/2012 issued by OP2.  The complainant has
also placed on record letter dated 14/11/2012 through which he had
requested the OP to deliver the car in a running condition.
Sh. Anil Mishra account manager of OP2 has filed his evidence by way
of his affidavit and has reiterated the facts as pleaded in the
written statement.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The counsel for OP1 has contended that as OP1 in the manufacturer, it
does not sell or earmark any vehicle in favour of any individual
customer under its invoice , there is no privitiy of contract between
it and the complainant and as such it is not liable for any deficiency
in services towards the complainant.
The counsel for the OP2 has contended that it had already delivered
the estimate to the complainant and it is only with the due  consent
of the complainant that it had started the repair work. The counsel
for OP2 has, however,  admitted that there is a delay on their part
and admitted that they had failed to deliver the said vehicle within
20 days as promised by them.  It is however contended that the delay
was due to non-availability of spare parts.
The complainant on the other hand has pointed out that OP2 had given
an estimate of Rs. 20,000/- at the time the vehicle was delivered to
it on 29/8/2012.  He has contended that nowOP2 has demanded a sum of
Rs. 30,000/- for giving the delivery of the vehicle which is
unwarranted,unjustified and unreasonable.
It is further alleged by the complainant that even  in the last week
of the October, the said vehicle was not in a running condition.
We are convinced with the contention of the complainant that there is
a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainant has
placed on record the demand repair sheet dated 29/8/2012 in which the
estimate cost of repair is recorded as Rs. 20,000/-. OP2 on the
contrary failed to prove that under which context they are demanding a
sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant.  The OP2 has placed on
record the vehicle history sheet, which clearly shows that the
promised date of delivery was 15-9-2012. However, the vehicle was
ready to delivery to the complainant only on 15/11/2012. It means that
 there is a delay on the part of the OP in delivering the said
vehicle to the complainant.
In the above circumstances, we hold OP2 guilty of deficiency in
service and direct it as under:
1. To deliver the aforesaid vehicle to the complainant in a running
conditions on the complainant paying a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for
causing mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as a cost of litigation.



The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date
of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on
the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply
with this order, the complainant

may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27
of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................