BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.
Complaint No.127/2018.
Date of instt.01.05.2018.
Date of Decision:28.02.2020.
Kuljeet Singh son of Surjeet Singh, resident of village Lohakhera, Tehsil Tohana & District Fatehabad
..Complainant.
Versus
- General Manager, Shakti Motors, Ratia Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
- General Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regd. Office Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071.
..Respondents/OPs.
Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.Jasvinder Singh, Member.
Argued by: Sh.R.S.Chatrath, Advocate for the complainant.
OP No.1 already ex-parte.
Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OP No.2.
ORDER
The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the averments that he had purchased a new Maruti Suzuki Ciaz SHVS ZDI PLUS car from OP No.1 bearing Registration No.HR23G/1616. It is further submitted that the complainant had also availed the facility of extended warranty through invoice dated 07.10.2016 after paying an amount of Rs.14,755/- and as per the said warranty card the warranty was extended upto 06.10.2020 or upto 80,000 kms. It was assured by the Sales Executive of the OP No.1 that any defect qua any product or accessories etc. within the terms and conditions of warranty shall be replaced if found defective within the warranty period.
2. It is further submitted that two months ago prior to the filing of the present complaint rear seat covers of the car in question were stretched to the extent of tearing and emitting found smell without any manual intervention. Therefore, the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 on 26.12.2017, but no heed was paid regarding the grievance of the complaint and it was told by OP No.1 to approach the Territory Sales Manager of Nexa at Panchkula. Therefore, the complainant approached to Territory Sales Manager of Nexa at Panchkula, but he also refused to entertain the genuine problem of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again visited OP No.1 on 03.01.2018 who also did not entertain the problem of the complainant. It is further submitted that thereafter the complainant also visited the showroom of the Ops at Jalandhar, but all in vain. The above said act on the part of Ops amounts to deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation. It has been further prayed that the Ops may be directed to replace the seat-covers of the complainant with a new one alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Despite proper service, the Op No.1 did not appear before this Forum and as such the OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.11.2018
4. Despite having been given ample opportunity by this Forum the OP No.2 did not file any written statement in the present case and as such the opportunity of filing reply was closed by order dated 04.12.2018 passed by this Forum.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/A alongwith the documents as Ex. C1 to C4 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
6. We have duly heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the documents placed on record. It is the case of the complainant that on 07.10.2016 he purchased Maruti Suzuki car from OP No.1 bearing Registration No.HR23G/1616. It is further the case of the complainant that after making of payment of Rs.14,755/- the complainant had availed the facility of extended warranty upto 06.01.2020 or upto 80,000 kms. It is further the case of the complainant that during the warranty period, the seat-covers of the insured vehicle were torn and emitting found smell. However, despite several requests having been made by the complainant to the Ops but the damaged seat-covers were not replaced by the Ops. To prove its case the complainant has placed on record his affidavit in evidence wherein the averments made in the complainant have been affirmed. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the extended warranty Ex.C1 and a perusal of the same go to show that the warranty was extended upto 06.10.2020 or upto 80,000 kms and an amount of Rs.14,755/- was paid by the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record the certificate of Registration of the vehicle in question as Ex.C2. The complainant has also placed on record the job-sheet of dated 20.01.2018 Ex.C5 and a perusal of the same go to show that the sheet cover were loose and damaged. In view of the above, the complainant has been able to establish that the sheet cover of the car in question were damaged within the warranty period and the same has not been repaired or replaced by the Ops.
7. Despite service the Op No.1 did not appear before this Forum and OP No.2 also did not file any written statement despite several opportunity given by this Forum and as such the averments of the complainant have gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP No.1 in rendering service to him. The present complaint is accordingly allowed and the Ops are directed to replace the sheet-cover of the car in question with a new one without charging any cost from the complainant.
9. The Ops are further directed for making a payment of Rs.3,000/- as litigation charges and compensation to the complainant on account of physical harassment and mental agony. The present order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost as provided in the rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.28.02.2020.
(Jasvinder Singh) (Raghbir Singh)
Member President DCDRF, Fatehabad.
