BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 207 of 2016.                                                                       

                                                              Date of Institution         :    30.8.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    12.5.2017.

Purshotam Phutela, Advocate son of Shri Babu Ram Phutela, resident of C-Block, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. M/s Padam Motors Private Limited, Goniana Road, Bathinda through its Authorized signatory (Main Dealer of M/s Padam Motors Hisar Road, Sirsa).

2. Chevrolet General Motors India Private Ltd., having its registered office at Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat State (India).

3. Virender Kaushal, Warranty Area Manager District Sirsa and Bathinda of General Motors, having its registered office at Chandrapura, Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat State (India).

4. Vikram Sales/ Works Manager, Padam Motors, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

                                                         ...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SH.RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT

                 SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………..……MEMBER.

                 SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE… MEMBER

Present:       Sh. P.S. Chauhan,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Opposite  parties No.1 to 3 exparte.

Opposite party no.4 given up.

                   ORDER

                    Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a vehicle i.e. Car Sail-UVA of diesel version bearing engine No.133240291 and key No.M08762, Model 2014 as stated by opposite party no.1 on behalf of op no.2. The said car has been purchased by the complainant against the cash payment of Rs.5,08,000/-. At the time of delivery of the car, the authorized sub-franchise office at Sirsa assured to provide the warranty qua the defective parts in the said car and sub-dealer assured to provide service at Sirsa. It is further averred that earlier the chimta and self of the car went out of order upon which the complainant made the complaint and the sub-franchise office of op no.1 at Sirsa charged a sum of Rs.7713/- from the complainant and also passed the comments upon the complainant that these charges are the result of filing of earlier complaint by the complainant. That now again in the month of June, 2016, the caliper of the car has gone out of order and when the complainant approached the then sub franchise office at Sirsa, they have charged a sum of Rs.7500/- from the complainant on the pretext of change of the same vide bill No.548 dated 18.6.2016. It is further averred that now the right side chimta/ four-arm of the car as well as self which has been earlier replaced by the then sub franchise of the op no.1 against the charge of Rs.7713/- have also gone out of order and when the complainant contacted the op no.1 then they openly declined to provide the service to the complainant at Sirsa and also stated that complainant have to bring the car at Bathinda and that they will charge the cost of the new self as well as right side chimta and these acts on the part of the ops amount to deficiency in service as they out of their dishonest intention opened the office at Sirsa and then without any intimation have removed/closed the office/ sub franchise at Sirsa. That due to the said conduct of the ops, the complainant also undergone mental tension, unnecessary harassment and humiliation etc. and they have adopted unfair trade practice towards by the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- on these counts. The complainant has also filed the complaints against the ops qua the deficiency in service qua the other parts of the car. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for a direction to them to refund of Rs.7500/- which has been charged by the ops and to replace the chimta as well as the self of the car and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Ops No.1 to 3 did not appear despite notice and were proceeded against exparte. Whereas op no.4 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of vehicle history card Ex.C2 and retail invoice Ex.C3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. In support he has placed on file copy of vehicle history card Ex.C2 and copy of retail invoice of Rs.7500/- as Ex.C3. The contentions put forth by the complainant are unrebutted and unchallenged as the ops No.1 to 3 did not bother to appear before this Forum rather they opted to be proceeded against exparte. According to the complainant, earlier the chimta and self of the car gone out of working for which the ops charged an amount of Rs.7713/- from the complainant for replacement of the same but now again in the month of June, 2016, the caliper of the car has gone out of order and the then sub franchise office at Sirsa charged a sum of Rs.7500/- from the complainant for replacement of the same vide bill No.548 dated 18.6.2016 which has been placed on file as Ex.C3. It is proved from the record that the ops have wrongly charged an amount of Rs.7500/- for replacement of caliper on 18.6.2016 as the vehicle is covered with warranty period i.e. three years or 1,00,000 Kms. whichever is earlier. Hence, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable to refund the amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant. However, no mechanical examination report with regard to other defective parts, if any has been placed on file by the complainant.

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua ops No.1 to 3 and direct the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.7500/- charged from the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 30.8.2016 till actual realization. The ops No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:12.05.2017.                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                   Member                Member