STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Shobha Sharma wife of Rajesh Sharma, resident of House No.3279, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh, presently residing at House No.64, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1. Oberoi Car Care, through its Prop./Partner, SCF 127, Sector 18-A, Chandigarh.

2. CrossLink Wheels Electronics Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Plot No.36, Batholi Kalan, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

3. Surabhi Automotive International, through it Proprietor/Partner, Regd. Office & Works, A/16/A, Street No.4/O, Anand Parbhat Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 005. (Manufacturers of Traxon Power Window Regulators).

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, for the grant of compensation alongwith enhancement of litigation costs, against the order dated 24.01.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-

“In the present circumstances, we feel that the offer of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 of making the refund of the amount that the Complainant had spent for the purchase of these two faulty equipments or the replacement of these equipments with the new ones is very much a valid offer. It is also noticed that the Opposite Parties were very much in a conciliatory mood from the very beginning and the same is reflected from the order dated 9.12.2010, when the present complaint was put before the Lok Adalat, at the request of the parties. Under such circumstances, we feel that no certain deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. However, considering the offer made by the answering Opposite Parties, we direct them to jointly and severally:-

[a]   Pay Rs.7,550/- towards the cost of equipments;

[b]   Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation;

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on Rs.7,550/- till it is paid, besides for the cost of litigation”.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased a new Santro car from Ultimate Automobiles on 24.7.2009. He got the various accessories fitted in the said car i.e. Central Locking for Rs.3500/-, Power Window Regulator for Rs.4,000/-, Gear lock for Rs.1000/- and  Side beeding with 3M tape for Rs.500/-. The Central Locking and Gear lock were manufactured by Opposite Party No.2, whereas, Power Window Regulator was manufactured by Opposite Party No.3.

3.             On 11.8.2009, there was a starting problem in the vehicle. A request was made to the Ultimate Automobiles, upon which it arranged a service van for onsite inspection. On examination, a service Engineer, from the Exide Company, the battery of which, was installed in the vehicle, was called, as the brand new battery stood discharged. A standby battery, was installed, and the entire wiring of the vehicle, as well as the power window system and central locking system were tested. It was stated that, in order to make sure, that there was no fault, with the wiring of the vehicle, the gadgets/equipments were disconnected and no fault was found therein. Subsequently, it was found that the battery of the vehicle, stood discharged, due to the gadgets/equipments only. Thereafter, the complainant requested Opposite Party No.1, to rectify the fault in the gadgets/equipments installed by it. After repeated requests and reminders, the service team of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, visited to fix the problem, on 20.8.2009. Thereafter, the vehicle of the complainant, again suffered the same problem on 20.10.2009, and once again, the same procedure was followed. Thereafter, the gadgets/equipments were disconnected, so as to get rid of the problem. The complainant, again made requests on different occasions i.e. 13.11.2009, 8.1.2010, 9.7.2010 and 10.7.2010. On each of these occasions, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, again and again, made small rectifications, but failed to remove the fault completely, and alleged that it was because of tampering with the original wires of the vehicle, by the technicians of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. It was further stated that by installing the faulty gadgets/equipments, the complainant was made to suffer for so many days. It was further stated that at the same time, tampering with the wiring system, had exposed the vehicle to short circuit, as well as loss of warranty from the car manufacturer. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), for removal of the faulty central locking & power window system; refund of the amount spent in lieu of the purchase of the two faulty gadgets/equipments or for replacement of  gadgets/equipments with the gadgets of some other company; payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental torture, harassment and damage to reputation and payment of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges,  was filed.

4.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was misconceived and without any reasonable basis. It was further pleaded that the complaint, was not maintainable, as the complainant had failed to approach the Forum with clean hands. It was stated that the complaint was based on incorrect and wrong facts and was an abuse of the process of law. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had no liability, whatsoever, to compensate the complainant, as the compensation was restricted to make good the loss or damage suffered, but the complainant failed to prove the same. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased the gadgets/equipments, from the open market and the same were fitted in the car. It was further stated that no guarantee was given to the complainant, regarding good performance of these gadgets/equipments. It was further stated that as and when required, satisfactory service was provided to the complainant. It was further stated that, at the time of installation of the gadgets/equipments, the same were working properly to the satisfaction of the complainant.  It was further stated that the repairs required for these gadgets/equipments were due to the mishandling, on the part of the complainant, and there was no other problem with the same. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, had offered the complainant, to remove the faulty equipments, and refund the amount, whereas, she refused this offer, by saying that the said service be done at her residence, which was not possible due to the lack of labour and proper equipment outside the shop. It was further stated that since the complainant did not suffer any loss or damage, she was not entitled to any compensation.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.                     Opposite Party No.2 & 3, in their respective replies took up almost the similar objections, as were taken by Opposite Party No.1, in its written version. It was stated that the invoice at Page 10,  of the complaint, was in the name of Rakesh Sharma, and, as such, the complainant was not the actual buyer of the gadgets/equipments. It was further stated that, as such, the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer. It was further stated that since the gadgets/equipments were purchased from Opposite Party No.1, and, as such, there was no privity of contract, between the complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. It was further stated that when there was problem with the Exide Battery, during the warranty period, service van was sent on different dates, and the problem was sorted out. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties no.2 and 3, nor they  indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion that the offer of Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3, of making the refund of the amount spent by the complainant, for purchase of two faulty equipments, or the replacement of the same, with the new ones, was very much a valid and genuine offer. It was further held that the Opposite Parties were very much in a conciliatory mood, from the very beginning, and the same was reflected from the order dated 9.12.2010, when the complaint was put up before the Lok Adalat.

8.             Accordingly, in view of the offer made by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, and granted the reliefs, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

9.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, for grant of compensation, in the sum of Rs.2 lacs, and enhancement of litigation costs from Rs.3,000/-, as already awarded by the District Forum,  to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.

10.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

11.           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, on account of defective gadgets/equipments, installed in the car by the Opposite Parties, a lot of inconvenience was caused to the complainant. He further submitted that again and again problem occurred with the gadgets/equipments and the same had to be intimated to the Opposite Parties, whereafter the same used to be rectified, consuming a lot of time. He further submitted that the District Forum, did not take into consideration the factum that a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant, on account of acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, and, thus, it fell into a grave error, in not awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties were in a conciliatory mood, from the very beginning, either to refund the amount spent by the complainant, for purchase of two faulty gadgets/equipments or replacement of the same. He further submitted that the relief granted by the District Forum, was not inconsonance with the injury, suffered by the complainant, at the hands of the Opposite Parties. He further submitted that the appellant was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.   He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, be modified, to this extent. 

12.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the gadgets/equipments were got installed in the car, by the appellant/complainant from Opposite Party No.1. It is evident, from evidence, on record, that as and when, the problem with the gadgets/equipments or the battery occurred, the same was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the Opposite Parties, right from the very beginning, were in a conciliatory mood, to extend helping hand, to the complainant, to sort out his problems, or they did not bother to attend to his complaints. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, in paragraph number 17, stated that it approached the complainant and offered her for the replacement of the faulty equipments/gadgets  or refund of the price thereof, but she refused, saying that the defect in the equipments be removed at her residence, which was not possible due to the lack of labour and proper equipment outside the shop. This assertion, in the written version of Opposite Party No.1, was duly supported by Ashmeet Oberoi, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.1, in his affidavit, in paragraph number 17, which was tendered by way of evidence. No rebuttal, to this evidence of Mr. Ashmeet Oberoi, was adduced by the complainant. It is, therefore, evident from the record, that right from the very beginning, the Opposite Parties were in conciliatory mood and were out and out to sort out the problem of the complainant. The stand adopted by the complainant, that the workers/technicians of Opposite Party No.1 should come to her house, for the purpose of replacement of gadgets/equipments, was totally misconceived. Opposite Party No.1 was right, in rejecting the same, on the ground, that for lack of labour and non-availability of equipment outside the shop, the job could not be performed, by going to the residence of the complainant. The offer, which was made by the Opposite Parties, regarding the refund of price of two faulty gadgets/equipments was genuine. The District Forum, was also right, in holding so. Had the Opposite Parties, not attended to the complaints of the complainant, from time to time, the matter would have been different. If, a completely ingenuine stand, is taken by the complainant, that the replacement of the gadgets/equipments aforesaid, should be made at her residence, that could not be, by any stretch imagination, accepted by the Opposite Parties.  The blame therefore lay upon the shoulders of the complainant. It was, under these circumstances, that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation.

13.           It may be stated here, that even the District Forum, while granting the reliefs, directed the Opposite Parties, that the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which, they shall pay penal interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.7,550/-, which was awarded as cost of faulty equipments. While granting penal interest @18% p.a., the District Forum, took into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the grant of penal interest @18% p.a., no further compensation could be granted to the complainant. The order of the District Forum, thus, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

14.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

15.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

17.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

April 16, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

                       Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg