This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective car and give brand new FORD IKON Car together with `1,00,000as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant had purchased a Ford Ikon motor car on 27.02.2010 from 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party who are the authorized dealers of 3^rd opposite party, the manufacturer. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are sister concern. The vehicle was manufactured in the year 2010.The advertisement published in various News dailies and visual media by the opposite parties to the effect that the vehicle classified by 3^rd opposite party Ford Ikon is having good mileage, working condition and other features including the air conditioning system of the car etc.  are far more better than similar vehicles of the same class and Model manufactured by various other Automobile companies. The advertisement and name and fame of the Ford company attracted the complainant and lead him to purchase the vehicle. But the vehicle started showing  serious trouble on the same month of purchase that some sort of  moisture came into exist on the wind shield when the Air conditioning systems started functioning. When the car is running, the moisture in the wind shield makes serious problem that, the driver could not see the road ahead and the vehicle coming from the opposite side and the condition would be much worsen in might time. Vehicle was taken to authorized service center of 1^st opposite party but they told him that this type of complaint was reported in rare occasions in the case of brand new Ford Icon cars and it will automatically be rectified within one or two months of using the vehicle. But the complaint continued and the gravity of covering moisture in the wind glass increased. Complainant escaped from accident two occasions. This makes serious mental, physical and financial strain to the complainant. Complainant was reported again. The opposite party noted the complaints. Later the car was delivered to the complainant telling that the complaint was rectified. But the complaint was seen persisted more vigorously. The car again brought to opposite party. 2^nd opposite party informed and assured that the expert of the 3^rd opposite party will come and rectify the defect on its second service. Second service was done on 01.10.10. But expert of the opposite party did not examine the vehicle as promised by the 1^st opposite party and the complaint could not be rectify by the opposite party. Complainant obtained 2 years extended warranty for his car by paying sufficient fees. But there was no use. The action of 1^st opposite party is unbefitting for the firm of its stature and reputation and their behavior was unheard of and unanticipated. The opposite party failed to tender adequate service,  so as to, rectify the defects as a result of which complainant suffered mental strain and stress.  The opposite parties are bound to replace the defective car to the complainant by delivering new FORD IKON CAR. Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice opposite parties made appearance and filed version.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version together and 3^rd opposite party filed separately. The brief of the contentions raised by opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows: Complaint had purchased FORD IKON Motor Car from these opposite party which was manufactured by 3^rd opposite party. The allegation that some sort of moisture came to exist on the windshield when the air condition system start working and the covering of moisture in the windshield makes serious problems while running and driver of the vehicle could not see the road ahead and the vehicle coming from the opposite pside etc.  are false.  The complaint bought the vehicle on 16.6.2010 when it crossed the mileage of 5252 KM, by alleging minor defects. It was duly attended by the service personal delivered to the complainant by full satisfaction. At that time the performance was also verified by running the vehicle for few kilometers. Next service was suggested before 27.8.10 or 10,000 Kms whichever is earlier. The complainant brought the vehicle on 1.11.2010 and not on 1.10.2010 as mentioned in the complaint. When it crossed the used mileage of 10856km the functioning of all mechanical main parts were checked and verified. The vehicle was tested on the road and the complaint had accepted the vehicle on satisfaction. The reported complaints were false. The averment that the complainant informed the problem to the service centre and authorized dealers from time to time and there was no  response from these opposite parties etc. are  absolutely false. There is no service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the side of these opposite parties. The complaint is experimental. Hence to dismiss the complaint.  

3^rd opposite party in his version separately filed contended as follow: Ford India Private India Ld. Is the manufacturer of cars. The products manufactured by this opposite party conform to highest standards of quality and perfection. Complainant has purchase the car from the showroom of the opposite party. 3^rd opposite party has a principal to principal arrangement with their dealers and each is responsible for their own individual actions. The vehicle produced by 3^rd opposite party is fuel efficient. But the mileage of a vehicle also depends on the careful use by the customer. The averment of the complainant that some sort of moisture appeared on the wind shield of the car due to the manufacturing defect of the car is denied as false. Whenever the vehicle was brought for service it was serviced and also rectified all defects. Even the claim of fogging on the wind screen was checked and the defects were cured. 3^rd opposite party had agreed to send an expert to examine the vehicle. But complaint had never co-operated with 3^rd opposite party in fixing a date for such inspection of the vehicle. 3^rd opposite party on several occasions had taken steps to clarify the defect as averred by the complainant to which he did not heed any response. All averments raised by complainant are false and the 3^rd opposite party is liable for any deficiency. Hence prayed to dismiss the case.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A7, Ext.B1to B3.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

Admittedly complainant has purchased FORDIKON Motor car from 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party on 27.02.2010. 3^rd  opposite party is the manufacturer. The main allegations of the complainant is that on the same month of he purchase the vehicle  started to showing serious troubles. There appeared some sort of moisture on the wind shield of the car when the air conditioning system started working. The driver of the   vehicle found difficult to drive the vehicle smoothly. Though saved there were even occasions for accidents more than once. Even after taking it to authorized service centre they told that the vehicle would be   alright automatically in the cause of running within one or two months. But it was continued to be existed increasing the gravity. All the promises on the part of opposite party had not been materialized. Complainant’s two years extended warranty became no use. It is also alleged by the complainant that the action of 1^st opposite party is unbefitting for the firm of its status and reputation. Opposite party on the other hand denied the allegation and contended that the reported complaint were false. They were also contended that the averment of the complainant that he had informed the problem to the service centre and authorized dealer from time to time and there was no response from the opposite parties are absolutely false. 3^rd opposite party specifically contended that whenever the vehicle was brought for service it was service and also rectified all defects. Even he claim of fogging on the wind screen was  checked and the defects were cured.

          Expert commission was taken out and Mr.Ajithkumar AMVI was appointed as expert commissioner. He has submitted Ext.C1 report stating that he has found that the grievances of the complainant that when he was using the air conditioning system, moisture accumulated in the wind shield, has been persisting. He has also opined that the cause of the complaint is due to the defect of the air conditioning system and the defect is repairable.

          Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence in line with his pleadings. He has given evidence that the vehicle was shown defects on the same month of the purchase. Fogging appeared on the wind field while using the air conditioning system made difficult situation that he could not drive the vehicle. He has also stated that two occasions he had miraculously escaped from accident. Complainant says that he had informed opposite parties the defect of the vehicle even before the 1^st service and they have done certain repairs after examining the vehicle. Then they returned vehicle telling that the defects were rectified but again it became defective same as earlier and the vehicle was afterwards taken for 1^st service on 16.6.2010.

          It can be seen that the vehicle was purchased on 27.2.2010. Complainant’s case is that the vehicle shown complaint of moisture forming on the wind shield making run the vehicle difficult on  sight to see the road ahead. It is brought out in cross examination of DW1 thus: “taSn¨ AtX amkT Xs¶ hml\¯n\p tISp h¶psh¶p ]dªXp icnbmWv.  Service centre t]mbncp¶p. hm§n¨n«v 5-6 ZnhkT Ignªv  service centre  t]mbncp¶p”. In the affidavit evidence also PW1 stated that the defects of the vehicle was informed to opposite parties 1 and 2  and after examination and repair the vehicle was returned telling that the defects were cured. Though it is not supported by documentary evidence it is not specifically denied by the opposite parties. It is true that opposite party has contended that the moister problem is false. The case of the opposite party is that on verification, it was found that reported complaints were false and after testing the vehicle over road, the complainant had accepted the vehicle on satisfaction. That means when the complainant approached opposite party last time there was actually no complaint of moisture problem.  3^rd opposite party also contended that the opposite party subjects all its cars to quality test before it is delivered to the end customer. Therefore possibility of such a defect is non existent. But 3^rd opposite party also stated in version that whenever the vehicle was brought it was serviced and all defects rectified. Even the said claim of fogging on the windscreen was checked and defects were cured. So it is a fact that such a complaint was attended by opposite party. Whether defect was cured or not is another question.3^rd opposite party claims that the defect was cured. Then what is the purpose of sending expert if the defect was cured. Ext.A3 goes to show that the problem was reported opposite party and recorded the same as the   first one after service as thus: moisture exit on wind shield while AC ON (Repeated complaint).But at the same time it can be seen nothing had been written about it in the column operations performed. So it is not possible to assume that such a complaint was rectified by the opposite party. If it was rectified that would have been recorded.

          In Ext.A6 interactive reception check sheet, it is seen under other observations recorded as NO.2 after NO.1 ‘second service” as moisture exist on windshield while AC on”. It is thus clear that the matter under dispute had been brought before the 3^rd opposite party. Herein arose the relevancy of report of the expert commissioner, what is claimed by opposite parties is that all the complaints  and defects raised before the opposite parties should be attended and cured the defects.  If that be true the existence of moisture on windshield being raised before the opposite party might have repaired and cured the defects. But the commission in his report Ext.C1 in unequivocal language reported that the complaint is persisting. He has also opinioned that the cause of the complaint is due to the defect of the air conditioning system and it is reparable.DW1 in his cross examination stated thus “ 2^nd service ImeL«¯n Hcp {]mhiyT h¶n«p­v . AC problem Bbncp¶p. . Wind shade fog D­v F¶mbncp¶p ]cmXn. . Wind shade Fog D­mhp¶Xp AC worksN¿pt¼mgmWv F¶mWp ]cmXn.B ]cmXn B kab¯v ]cnlcn¨psImSp¯ncp¶p”. . The clear answer that the complaint had been rectified at that time makes it ascertain that the allegation  moisture exist on wind field while AC ON is true. The contention of opposite party that the averment of complainant  that some sort of moisture appeared on he wind shield  of the car is false is untrue and it has the tune of an  unfair trade practice. DW1 further deposed in cross examination that “A\ymb¡mcsâ hml\T H¶ntesd XhW  repair sN¿m³ Øm]\¯nse¯n¨n«pT repairsN¿m³  Ignªnà F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv”. Thus it is evident that the vehicle was placed before opposite party with the above said default many times. DW1 again deposed that “….. repair order ]cntim[n¨mÂ(A3) dated 1.11.2010 service sNbvXn«p­v.. 10,000 km 2^nd service BWv. AXn  5 complaints BWv.  ACbpsS complaint repeated complaint Fs¶gpXnbn«p­v. AXnsâ AÀ°T t\ct¯bpT ]eXhW BhÀ¯n¨n«p­v F¶mWv. Repair order A3 bn ACbpsS  complaint repairsNbvXp  correct sNbvXXmbn ImWp¶nÃ’.   The evidence reveals that there was complaint of moisture and it was repeatedly reported to opposite party but the defect remained not cured. DW1 deposed in cross examination also that 3^rd opposite party hml\T perfect condition BWv dealer¡v Xcp¶Xp F¶p ]dªm icnbÔ. It does mean he is not able to rule out the manufacturing defect.DW1 further deposed that “1.11.2010 expert ]cntim[n¨ncp¶p. He has earlier deposed that  KpcpXcamb manufacturing defectDs­¦n 3^rd opposite party manufactures\ Adnbn¡WT  AhcpsS  expert h¶p hml\T ]cntim[n¡pT”. That means even though the expert of 3^rd opposite party attended the vehicle they could not rectify the defect.  The contention of opposite parties that whenever the vehicle was brought it was serviced and all defects rectified is a crystal clear lie, which needs no explanation. The claim of 3^rd opposite party that the fogging on the wind screen was checked and defects were cured is an utter falsehood.

          Expert examined the vehicle on 1.11.2010. Ext.A3 issued on 1.11.2010 after examination of expert. Ext.A3 document shows recoded the complaint of moisture existence(repeated) but excluded in recording what had been done to rectify that defects, which only can be assumed that  3^rd opposite party failed to rectify the defect and unable to given any suggestion for the rectification of the same. Non recording of the examination result is sufficient enough to conclude that it is an unfair trade practice to mislead the party one way or the other. If that is not a manufacturing defect it would have been recorded the real reason for the cause of moisture exit on the wind shield. Anyhow in the light of Ext.C1 it is seen that defect is curable by repair. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect with taking no time.  If they are not able to repair the vehicle in ready condition within the specified time opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to replace a brand new car to complaint We are also of opinion that the opposite party is liable to give compensation of an amount of `10,000  and a sum of `2000 as cost of this proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 are answered  in faovur of complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to rectify all the defects of the vehicle and to pay  `10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation  and a sum of  `2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which opposite party is liable to replace brand new car to the complainant. Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.

 Sd/-                         Sd/-                    Sd/-

        President               Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.Retail invoice dt.27.2.10 issued by OP issued by OP-

A2.Copy of sale certificate issued by OP

A3.Repair order issued by OP

 A4. Photographs & CD

A5. Delivery checklist issued by OP

A6. Copy of interactive reception check sheet dt.1.11.10

A7. Copy of the Quote, Ford solutions Details of  vehicle

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.  Authorization letter

B2.  & B3. Repair order

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

 Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1. K.P.Basheer

        / forwarded by order/

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent