STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Complaint No.32 of 2010) Date of Institution: 02.09.2009 Date of Decision : 09.11.2010 Sh. Jagtar Singh Padda son of Sh. Raghuvir Singh resident of Flat No.4A, Spangle Heights, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Punjab. ……Complainant V e r s u sM/s Dynamic Motors through its General Manager, Plot No.5, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh. ....Opposite Party. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER SH. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the OPs. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This is a complaint under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP with respect to the car purchased from it. 2. According to the complainant, he purchased from the OP Chevrolet Captiva for Rs.18,38,700/- vide Retail Invoice (Annexure C-1). It was alleged that the said car had some defect as it started giving trouble from the very beginning and it was a manufacturing defect in the car. On 7.7.2009, the engine belt of the car was broken due to the manufacturing defect in the car, it was taken to the premises of OP but it failed to handover the car back for a month and during the said period, the complainant and his family members requested the OP several times to handover the car or to replace the same with a new one but they did not. He then sent a legal notice (Annexure C-5) and thereafter, the car was delivered to him on 6.8.2009, which he took under protest. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the said car be replaced with a new one or the price of the car charged by the OP be refunded to him. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.10 Lacs for undue harassment, mental agony and undue hardship caused by the OP in delivering a car having manufacturing defect and in retaining the car for repair for about one month. He also prayed for Rs.44,000/- as costs of litigation. 3. The OP admitted having sold the car to the complainant for Rs.18,38,700/- but its contention is that there is no manufacturing defect in the car and the OP is not guilty of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant was alleged to have approached the OP on 25.5.2009 for accidental repair of the vehicle costing Rs.9,000/-, which the complainant wanted to be covered under warranty. However, when the OP refused to oblige the complainant, he became inimical towards the OP. The car was again brought on 5.6.2009 for low pickup but after checkup, the complainant was advised to remove the oversized RIMs and tyres from the vehicle. It was admitted that on 8.7.2009, the complainant approached the OP for broken V-Belt damaged engine parts. However, the parts were not readily available with the OP and were requisitioned from the manufacturer i.e. M/s General Motors. When the parts were received, the car was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 6.8.2009. It was alleged that there was no delay on its part and therefore, the complainant is not entitled either to the refund of the amount or to the compensation asked for by him. 4. The complainant fled rejoinder alleging that since the OP kept the car for more than one month, the complainant and his family members suffered harassment. The breaking of the V-Belt and damage to the engine parts was admitted. It was alleged that he had used RIMs and tyres as per dimensions mentioned in the booklet. The other assertions were also denied. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. 7. It was mentioned by the complainant in Para No.2 of the complaint that when he started using the car, it came to his knowledge that the said car has “some defect” as it started “giving trouble” from the very beginning and it was a manufacturing defect in the car. In Para No.3, again it was mentioned that the car started giving trouble from the beginning, which shows unfair trade practice on the part of OP. It was nowhere mentioned by the complainant as to what the defect in the car was and what trouble it had been giving to him when it was driven. In order to succeed in proving that the car had a manufacturing defect, the complainant has not only to specify the defect or the problem but to adduce evidence to prove the same, both of which are lacking in the present case. OP had denied if there was any manufacturing defect in the car and the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the same. This contention of the complainant, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct. 8. There is no dispute about it that the car was handed over to the OP on 8.7.2009 for repairs. The car was delivered back to the complainant after repair on 6.8.2009. The Job Card dated 8.7.2009 [Annexure R-2 (Colly.)] shows that the car was handed over to the OP at 9:57 a.m. on that date. The promised date of return was 8.7.2009 itself at 17:00 i.e. 5 p.m. It shows that the defects in the car were minor, which could be repaired the same day. The contention of the OP that it never promised to return the car the same day is, therefore, falsified from its own document. Admittedly, however, the car was not returned on that day and not even till 6.8.2009. 9. The reason for delay in the repair of the car is mentioned by the OP that the spare parts were not available with it and it sent a requisition (Annexure R-3) to the General Motors for sending the parts. The letter (Annexure R-4) was, however, written on 16.7.2009 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter, the reminders dated 20.7.2009, 23.7.2009 and 25.7.2009 were issued. There is then e-mail dated 29.7.2009 that General Motors informed the complainant about the delay in dispatch of the consignment. It is argued that when the parts were not available in its stock, the OP could not repair the vehicle promptly and it was due to this reason that there was delay in delivery of the car back to the complainant. 10. The absence of the parts in the stock is not, in our opinion, a justification for delay in repairing the car rather it shows deficiency in service on the part of OP that they were not keeping such minor things in their stock as V-Belt, which are not very costly. The OP is a dealer and the vehicles not only sold by it but by other dealers of this brand may also be brought to its workshop for repairs and therefore, it was necessary for the OP to have the spare parts in its stock ready so that the customers are not harassed by delaying the repair of their cars. OP, however, failed in its obligation to the customer and took about one month in getting the spare parts from the General Motors, which resulted in delay in the repair of the car. The OP did not bother to see the plight of the customer who having purchased a most luxurious and comfortable vehicle worth Rs.18,38,700/- was deprived use of the vehicle for more than a month without any fault on his part. This is definitely a deficiency in service on the part of OP when it delayed the repair of the vehicle, which according to its own document, should have been completed the same day. 11. The conduct of the complainant in concealing vital information from the Commission can also be noticed. First he mentioned that there are manufacturing defect in the car. He neither specified the defect nor gave any evidence to prove the same. Then he did not mention in the complaint if the car had met with an accident. However, when he was confronted, he had to admit the accident. Again, he did not mention if after the V-Belt was broken, he tried to start the car due to which the other engine parts were damaged. When the OP mentioned this fact in Para No.4 of the complaint, the complainant had to admit but alleged that the breaking of V-Belt and damage to engine parts rather shows that there was defect in the car from the beginning due to which the complainant suffered a lot. 12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that OP was deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant, in repairing the car promptly but delayed it for about one month due to which the complainant and his family members suffered harassment and humiliation. The OP must, therefore, pay compensation to the complainant for this delay. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the complainant, we allow the complaint and assess the amount of compensation to Rs.25,000/-. The complainant shall pay the said amount along with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the same would carry interest @9% per annum since the date of filing of the complaint i.e.2.9.2009 till the amount is recovered. 13. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 9th November 2010. [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (Complaint No.32 of 2010) Argued by: Sh. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the OPs. Dated the 9th day of November, 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
STATE COMMISSION (Complaint No.32 of 2010) PRESENT: Sh. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the OPs. Dated the 8th day of November, 2010. ORDER Arguments heard. The case is reserved for orders. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
