BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.837 of 2013

Date of Institution: 11-12-2013

Date of Decision: 27-05-2015  

Kanika Singh wife of Sh.Sarabjit Singh son of Sh.Harbhajan Singh, resident of 23, Neta Ji Lane, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Majitha Road, Amritsar.  

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Delhi Motors through its partner/ prop. carrying on its business at 19, Court Road, Opp.HDFC Bank, Amritsar.
2. M/s.Auto Trendz Impex Private Limited, through its partner/ proprietor, Managing Director, Overall Business incharge having its Corporate Office at 195, Block J, New Allipore, Kolkata-700053.
3. M/s.Auto Trendz Impex Private Limited, through its partner/ proprietor, Managing Director, Overall Business Incharge having its Regional Office at SCO 94,95, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. 
4. M/s.H.S.Electronics through its partner/ proprietor, Overall Business Incharge doing its business at 49, 2^nd Floor, Sethi Complex, Jossan Market, Hall Bazar, Amritsar.    

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. G.S.Nagra, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3: Exparte.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.4: Given Up.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Kanika Singh, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she approached Opposite Party No.1 to install a suitable Car Stereo for her car make Honda Accord bearing RC No.HR-26-AU-5150 and Opposite Party No.1 induced the complainant to purchase the Touch Screen Stereo of CASKA as the same has been built especially for  the car Honda Accord and as such, the complainant became ready to purchase a DVD Player/ Car Stereo make CASKA having Model No. 36394 vide bill No. 3494 dated 5.2.2013 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant alleges that Opposite Party No.1 personally made a telephonic call to the representative of Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 and they sent their mechanic to install the Stereo in the car of the complainant at the shop of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties also assured to give regular service without any interruption regarding  the product to the complainant. On the purchase of the car stereo, a warranty card with the warranty of 24 months from the date of its purchase was also issued alongwith coupons of its service by the Opposite Parties. It was a matter of utter dismay and surprise that on the very next day of the purchase of the car stereo i.e. on 6.2.2013 the system totally shut down and stop working immediately.  The complainant and her husband on the very next moment rushed to the Opposite Party No.1 and expressed their grievance regarding the non performance of the stereo. Opposite Party No.1 immediately made a telephonic call to the Opposite Party No.4 regarding the same and thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent their mechanic at the address of Opposite Party No.1 and they repaired the stereo and the Opposite Parties  assured the complainant that the problem has permanently been removed and the complainant would never face any such problem in the near future, but of no avail and the position was the same. Again in the month of April, 2013, complaints were lodged by the complainant with the Opposite Parties  regarding the defect in the stereo and again the mechanics of the Opposite Parties repaired the stereo by giving assurance, but after the gap of two or three days, the stereo again started giving problem and it was not working properly.  The complainant requested to replace the stereo as the problem is permanent and the same is manufacturing defect, but once again full assurances were given by them regarding its proper working and functioning. It is a matter of utter dismay that after few days of its repair, the stereo of the car again started creating problem in its working and in the month of May 2013 , GPRS system of the stereo stop working and finally it shut down totally. Once again, it was repaired by the representative of the Opposite Parties  with the fake assurances of its proper functioning in the future. The complainant on each and every repair requested the Opposite Parties  to remove the technical defect from the stereo permanently or to replace the stereo as the problem is permanent and the same is manufacturing defect, but all in vain. On 9.10.2013 the problem in the system once again arose and this time again the GPRS system stop working and the system once again shut down totally and in this respect again the complaint was lodged with the Opposite Parties, but to no avail and as a result of which, the complainant and her husband rushed to the Opposite Party No.1 and made a written complaint on 31.10.2013 on the printed format of the Opposite Parties  regarding the defect  in the stereo.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to replace the defective car stereo with fresh one.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.2  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the product CASKA has two components- the Car Audio and the Map Card. The Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are the distributor of only the Car Audio part of the product which comes with a warranty period of 24 months. The Map Card is a Map My India Product which is a separate product altogether which comes with a warranty of 6 months. Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 gave warranty only in respect of the Audio and for Map Card, the warranty liabilities are with Map My India. The warranty cards for the two products are also different.  On the warranty card, none of the coupons of service were used which clearly indicate that there was never a complaint with regard to the Audio component of the product and thus the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 can not be made liable for the defect in the Map Card of the product. There was no complaint with regard to the product in February 2013 after its purchase by the complainant. However, there was one demonstration request which was duly honoured and a technician was sent to the complainant’s residence for the purpose of re-demonstration to oblige the valued customer. The complainant had lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.3 with respect to the Map Card not functioning and the complainant was explained by the technician of Opposite Party No.3 that the problem was with regard to the Map card with which, the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 were in no ay concerned and the technicians advised the complainant to contact the service centre of Map My India, but the complainant did not visit  Map My India authorised service centre. The Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 have given their best customer service to the complainant  even when the problem was not related to their product. It is nowhere mentioned that the problem was with regard to the audio part of the product. Inspite of this, the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 extended their full service to the complainant as a goodwill gesture.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Notice sent to Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3. So, Opposite Parties  No.1 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.3.2014 of this Forum.
4. On the statement dated 1.4.2014 of  ld.counsel for the complainant  Opposite Party No.4 was given up.
5.  Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Madhu Shree Gupta Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant got installed DVD player/ stereo make CASKA in her car Honda Accord bearing RC No.HR-26-AU-5150 vide bill  No. 3494 dated 5.2.2013 Ex.C4 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-.Opposite Parties also issued  warranty card of 24 months from the date of its purchase. Complainant  alleges that  on 6.2.2013 said system totally shut down and stopped working.  The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 made a telephonic call to the Opposite Party No.4 regarding the same and thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent their mechanic at the address of Opposite Party No.1 and they repaired the stereo. However, again in the month of April, 2013 said stereo became defective and the complaints were lodged by the complainant with the Opposite Parties  regarding the defect in the stereo and again the mechanics of the Opposite Parties  repaired the stereo. However after the gap of two or three days again, the stereo started giving problem. In the month of May 2013 the GPRS system of the stereo stopped working and finally it shut down totally. Once again, it was repaired by the representative of the Opposite Parties, but they could not remove the defect permanently. On 9.10.2013 said problem in the system again erupted and again the GPRS system stopped working. Again the complaint was lodged with the Opposite Parties and the complainant also served  written complaint Ex.C2 on the printed  format of the Opposite Parties. This time the complaint was forwarded to the manufacturing company, but the Opposite Parties  could not rectify the defect in the stereo. The complainant requested Opposite Parties  No.1 to 3 to replace the stereo with new one as the old one has manufacturing defect, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite party No. 2 is that the product CASKA has two components- the Car Audio and the Map Card.  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are the distributors of only Car Audio part which comes with a warranty period of 24 months, whereas the Map Card is Map My India product which is altogether a separate product having warranty of only 6 months.  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 gave warranty only in respect of the Audio and  with regard to  Map Card, the warranty liabilities are with Map My India. On the warranty card, none of the coupons of service were used which clearly indicate that there was never a complaint with regard to the Audio component of the product. Therefore, the  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 can not be made liable for the defect in the Map Card of the product. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there was no complaint with regard to the product in February 2013 after its purchase by the complainant. However, there was one demonstration request which was duly honoured and a technician was sent to the complainant’s residence for the purpose of re-demonstration only. The complainant lodged a complaint with Opposite Party No.3 with respect to the Map Card not functioning and it was categorically explained to the complainant that the problem was with regard to the Map Card with which, the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 were in no way concerned. However, due to several requests made by the complainant, technicians were sent to the complainant’s house to check the product. The problem was with regard to some software file of the map card gone missing for which the complainant was advised to contact the  service centre of Map My India, but the complainant did not visit  Map My India authorised service centre. Another complaint was lodged by the complainant for GPRS system for which the complainant was advised to visit Map My India Service centre. Since the problem was with regard to Map Card and warranty of the same was with Map My India which was for 6 months and the same was over, so the complainant was to pay for the card repair, if some major problem was detected. The complainant did not visit Map My India i.e the authorised service centre. She visited the authorised service centre of Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3  where she  was attended to by the technicians. The complainant book was taken by the complainant and having took the photo copy of the same and thereafter, the complainant  alongwith her husband left the place threatening the technicians of Opposite Party No.3 of dire consequence/ court proceedings. The complainant has nowhere mentioned that the problem was with regard to the audio part of the product. But inspite of this, the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 extended their full service to the complainant as a goodwill gesture. The problem in the product was with regard to GPRS system of the stereo, the warranty of which has already been expired and the complainant has not made Map My India as party.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got installed DVD player/ stereo make CASKA in her car Honda Accord bearing RC No.HR-26-AU-5150 vide bill  No. dated 5.2.2013 Ex.C4 from Opposite Party No.1. Said product CASKA has two components i.e. Car Audio and the Map Card.  Car Audio part has warranty  of 24 months, whereas the Map Card is Map My India product which is altogether a separate product having warranty of only 6 months.  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 gave warranty only in respect of the Car Audio and  the warranty regarding  Map Card is liability  with Map My India. Warranty card shows that  none of the coupons of service were used by the complainant  which indicate that there was never any complaint with regard to the Audio component of the product. However, there was one demonstration request which was duly honoured and a technician was sent to the complainant’s residence by the Opposite Party  for the purpose of re-demonstration only. The complaint lodged by the complainant with Opposite Party No.3 was with respect to the Map Card not functioning and it was explained to the complainant that the problem was with regard to the Map Card. However, due to several requests made by the complainant, technicians were sent to the complainant’s house to check the product. The problem was with regard to some software file of the map card gone missing for which the complainant was advised to contact the  service centre of Map My India. Another complaint was lodged by the complainant for GPRS system which was also regarding  Map Card and the complainant was advised to visit Map My India Service centre. The warranty of Map Card was  for 6 months which had already expired, so the complainant was to pay for the Map-card repair. However, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2  stated at bar that they would get the DVD Player/ Stereo of the car of the complainant repaired and make it fully functional without charging any amount.
11. Resultantly, the complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to produce the DVD Player/ Stereo make CASKA before the service centre of Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 are directed to get the DVD Player/ Stereo make CASKA installed in the car of the complainant, repaired by making it fully functional without charging any amount from the complainant, within one month from the date the said DVD Player/ Stereo make CASKA is produced before the service centre of Opposite Party No.3 by the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 27-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member