DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 173 of 12.5.2017

                                      Decided on:         1.4.2021

Faqir Chand, aged about 75 years, son of Sh.Saddi Ram, resident of Village Swazpur, Post Office Wazidpur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. P M G Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., B15, Focal Point, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Kashyap Motors Pvt.Lte., 46, Okhla, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020, through its Authorized Signatory.
3. FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Benefice, 2^nd Floor, Mathuradas Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013, through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM                    Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal,counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1&2 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.Gaurav Singla, counsel for OP No.3.

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Faqir Chand  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against P M G Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.

Facts of the complaint

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is a NRI and a social worker and has connected with many of NGO’s and has to go many places in India regularly for this purpose. Accordingly on 23.11.2016 he purchased a new Fiat Punto car bearing registration No.PB-11-N(T)-4263 having engine No.0622631 and chassis No.MCA11847E07069422 BGZ colour grey for Rs.6,58,000/-.
3. It is averred that on 19.12.2016 when he was going to Delhi, the car in question stopped working in the way and immediately he called to customer care of OPs. The service centre i.e. OP No.2 received the car till date the same is lying with it. The complainant approached OP No.2 and came to know about the manufacturing defect in the engine. Thereafter complainant approached OPs No.1&3 time and again for the replacement of the car but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He also got sent legal notice upon the OPs and the OPs gave a false and vague reply. It is averred that the complainant is hiring taxi for going here and there and is spending Rs.2500/- per day. It is averred that OPs No.1&3 cheated the complainant and committed fraud with him and also made him to suffer from mental pain and agony and also caused great inconvenience .It is averred that the non replacement of the car in question with new one within the warranty period, amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to replace the car and also to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation; Rs.2500/- as per day taxi fare from 19.12.2016 to 30.4.2017 i.e. Rs.2,57,500/- and Rs.2100/- as cost of litigation.

Reply/Written Statement

4. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OP No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply while OPs No.1&2 did not come present and were accordingly proceeded against exparte  vide order dated 7.7.2017.
5. In the written reply filed by OP No.3 at the outset it controverted all the material averments contained in the complaint. In the preliminary objections it is pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 on 23.11.2016 and is under basic warranty period. It is further submitted that each and every car manufactured at the plat of OP No.3 goes through the stringent quality checks by the Quality department and only when the vehicle is found to be absolutely perfect in all parameters, the same is off loaded from the assembly line and road tested on all types of testing tracks built according to the international standards. It is further submitted that complete engine of the vehicle in question has been entirely replaced as per warranty terms and the vehicle in question is in road worthy condition and has resolved all issues raised with regards to the vehicle in question. Further it is pleaded that there being no privity of contract between OP No.3 and dealer so it cannot be held responsible for anything.
6. On merits the OP reiterated the stand as raised above which  need not to be repeated for the sake of brevity. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7.  
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Harsh Mishra, alongwith documnents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
9.  
9. The OP No.3 has also filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a new Fiat Punto car for Rs.6,58000/- on 23.11.2016 from OP No.1. The ld. counsel further argued that on 19.12.2016 the complainant was going to Delhi and the car was stopped on the way and the complainant to know about the defect of the car and he approached the OPs but the car was not replaced. So the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the car was purchased from OP No.3 and it is the duty of OP No.1 and the OP No.3 as such complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint, Ex.C1 is the legal notice,Ex.C2 is reply to legal notice, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the engine of the car was changed. Ex.C3 is postal receipt, Exs.C4 to C7 are receipts of OP No.1,Ex.C8 is temporary registration certificate, Ex.C9 is also temporary certificate of registration,Ex.C10 is receipt Ex.C11 is pollution certificate.
13. On behalf of OP No.3 Sh.Harsh Mishra, of OP has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement. In the affidavit he has specifically pleaded that the complete engine of the vehicle in question has been entirely replaced as per warranty terms to the satisfaction of the complainant. So by going through the documents, it is clear that the engine was changed to the satisfaction of the complainant. However, if there is still any defect, in the car, the OP 1 is directed to rectify the car to the satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. The complaint stands partly allowed accordingly.
    108605146108.  

DATED:1.4.2021         

                              Y.S.Matta     Vinod Kumar Gulati         Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                Member                 Member                               President