Complainant Amit  has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to replace spare parts which he has removed from his car and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to him on account of mental agony, physical harassment torture caused by the opposite party on account of deficiency in service on his part alongwith Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that on 25.10.2013 he got installed security system from the opposite party in his car Alto K 10 bearing Registration No.PB-35-S-8502. The said car security system which was installed by the opposite party in his said car was of XENOS made and the opposite party gave warranty card which was valid for the next three years from 25.11.2013 onwards. He has further pleaded that about one and half month back, said car security system which was installed by the opposite party in his car started giving troubles in its operation. He immediately contacted the opposite party and requested him to remove the defect which is occurred. The opposite party removed some part out of the said security system and asked him to wait for some days. He kept on visiting the shop of the opposite party, but the opposite party kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 10.7.2015, the opposite party made a telephone call to him to get the spare parts fitted in his car. At about 1.45 P.M. he visited the shop of the opposite party the company of one Harish and to his utter surprise before installing the spare part which has been taken by the opposite party for repair, he demanded Rs.700/-. He reminded the opposite party the security system is within warranty period and as such why he is demanding amount of Rs.700/-. The act of the opposite party of demanding Rs.700/- from him when security system detailed above was within warranty period and the opposite party is liable to replace the spare parts removed by him from his car. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand and suppressed the true and material facts from this Ld.Forum and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant  when contacted the opposite party, the opposite party told him that he will get the security system repaired from authorized dealer/shop i.e. ‘Singh Automobiles’, but the complainant instead of coming to the opposite party for repair, went directly to the Singh Automobile for repair of security system. It was incorrect that the opposite party removed some part out of said security system and the opposite party asked the complainant to wait for some days. It was further submitted that security system was not given to opposite party. It was also incorrect and denied that the opposite party demanded Rs.700/- from the complainant for repair. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Harish Kumar Ex.C4, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Munish Kumar of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and of Sh.Shami son of Sudesh Kumar Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the OP vendor has admitted having sold (and installed) the Car Security System to the complainant (in his Alto Car) and have also admitted its having turned defectively ‘inoperative’ as alleged by the complainant. However, the OP vender has not produced some cogent evidence (copy of invoice with terms of Sale etc) to prove that repairs were to be carried out by one Singh Automobile and not by him. Presently, as per the affidavits Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP2 the security system in question stands duly repaired and even no charges need be paid since the ‘system’ duly wrests within the warranty period of three years. However, we also find that the complainant was deprived of the ‘use’ of the security system in his car for all this period and he was also forced to file the present complaint to seek redressal of his grievances/bruises received at the OP hands.      

8.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP here to install the repaired security ‘system’ to the complainant’s car free of cost (the same being within the warranty period of ‘3’ years) besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as cost & compensation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of these orders otherwise the award shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actual payment.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

January, 20 2016.                                                          Member.

*MK*