By Smt. Beena. M,  Member:

This is a complaint preferred under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-  On 18.02.2021 the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 12-F-6492 Maruti 800 car met with an accident.  On the same day of the accident the Complainant took the car to the Autowill Performance Garage, Muttil to get his car repaired. They returned the car on 26.02.2021, after repair.  But on 28.02.2021 the Complainant found water particles had entered in left side of newly purchased headlight of his car and he reported this to the workshop and informed the manager of SAI service as per the instructions of Opposite Party No.2, but the manager told to the Complainant that the company is not responsible to replace the headlight.  Hence, this Complaint. 

3. On receipt of the notice, the 1^st Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version contending that the Complainant is not consumer within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  They also took plea that there was no privity of contract between 1^st Opposite Party and the Complainant.  The Complaint filed by the Complainant with respect to purchase of a headlight by a service center named Autowill Performance garage for its commercial purposes.  The Opposite Party further stated that they never sold any spare parts to the Complainant and the Autowill Performance Garage purchased certain spare parts, they don’t know that whether the same is purchased by Autowill Performance Garage for fitting on the vehicle of the Complainant as alleged by the Complainant.  The First Opposite Party stated that the defect alleged by the Complainant in the complaint with respect to head light may occur due to improper fitment by any unqualified mechanic in an unauthorized service centre and the Opposite party is not liable for the negligent act of the workshop.  The Opposite Party is supplying original parts as supplied by Maruthi Suzukki India limited and meets the applicable standards. All other allegations have been denied by the Opposite Party.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 prays to dismiss the complaint with the cost.

        4.  The Complainant had filed petition to implead the service center as Second Opposite Party, because the Opposite Party No.1 had raised issue of non-joinder of necessary   party.  IA was allowed and Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded.  Notice to Opposite Party No.2 served but the Opposite Party has not entered appearance.  So the Opposite Party No.2 called absent and set exparte.

5. Points for consideration are as follows:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite

         Parties?

    2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief and cost?

6. The Complainant examined as PW1 and the documents marked as Ext. A1 to A3.  The Opposite Party No.1 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

7. Point No. 1 & 2 :-  For the sake of convenience the points No. 1 & 2 are considered here together:- 

          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that Complainant has placed on record  Ext A1, bill issued by Autowill Performance Garage Ext. A2, Copy of RC Ext. A3.  Though the Complainant produced bill issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party but failed to produce expert opinion to prove the fact that there existing water particles inside the headlight.  It is settled principle of law that report of expert is essential or some other evidence showing manufacturing defect should be adduced. Here, the Complainant neither placed any expert opinion nor any evidence in support of his allegations.  In absence of any credible evidence it cannot be said that the product is defective. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Complainant has proved deficiency in service.  The Complainant has failed to prove his case. 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  day of 15^th May 2024.     Date of filing:04.05.2021.                                                             

                                                    PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                         MEMBER:   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Muhammed Jumsheer.            Complainant.                 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits  for the Complainant:

A1.    Copy of Counter Sale Tax Invoice.              dt:26.02.2021.

A2.    Bill.                                                             dt:26.02.2021.

A3.     Copy of Certificate of Registration.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT:   Sd/-  

                                                                                                                                              MEMBER  :   Sd/-