CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 247/13
Mohinder Pal Singh,
D-8/8178, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi. -Complainant
Vs
1. Sh. Tanpreet Singh,
Hemkunt Car Care
A-115, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi – 24.
2. General Manager,
Xenox Automotive Ltd.
965, Avinash Road,
Coimbatore-841037. -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 26.4.2013 Date of Order: .1.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated the case of complainant is that he purchased gear lock for newly purchased Hyundai car on 23.2.13but the gear lock could not be installed in the vehicle.
Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, hereinafter referred to as complainant had purchased Hyundai car on 18.2.2013 from Koncept Hyundai, Green Park and Gear Lock of Xenox Automotive Ltd. from Hemkunt Car Care, A-115, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 23.2.13 for Rs. 755/-. The technical person of Xenox Automotive Ltd. visited the premises of the complainant on 24.2.13 to install the gear lock in the car. For this purpose, they made 3 holes in the chassis frame of the car near the gear system to fix the plate of gear lock but the same could not be fixed and the car was left with 3 holes without any gear lock being installed.
The complainant sent e-mail to the customer care of Xenox Automotive Ltd. on 25.2.13 brining out the failure of their technical team to fix the plate of the gear lock despite making 3 holes in the chassis frame near gear system and called upon them to rectify the major damage to his new car and if possible replace the car. This e-mail was followed by the notice under Consumer Protection Act 1986 dated 26.2.13 giving them 15 days to do the needful. In response to the notice Xenox Automotive Ltd hereinafter refer to as OP-2 vide their letter dated 9.3.15 acknowledge the notice pleading apology to rectify the problem immediately at their cost with further request to stop any kind of legal proceedings. The complainant responded to this letter of OP-2 and made further allegation vide his letter dated 18.3.2013 that “instead of fixing gear lock, your company person made another damage and cut the console of the car again wrongly. Now my car is without gear lock and that damage on the chassis frame (3 holes) along with damaged console”. In this letter the complainant called upon the OP-2 to:
- Rectify the major damage of my car OR
- replace my car with new one
- if any theft happens during this period, your company will be responsible as Gear Lock is to prevent the theft.
This was followed by filing of complaint by the complainant on 26.4.13 with Annexures C-1 to C-8 pleading deficiency in service by OP-1 & 2 with the following prayers:
- to direct the Xenox Automotive Ltd OP-2 to replace his car with new one along with all accessories, Registration fees and cost of mental stress deemed fit.
- to direct the Xenox Automotive Ltd. OP-2 or Owner of Hemkunt Car Care OP-1 to compensate relief claimed.
OP-1 has not filed any written statement nor attended proceedings, therefore, proceeded exparte.
OP-2 being supplier of gear lock has contested the claim of the complainant by filing written statement mainly on the grounds that they had been persistently seeking appointment from the complainant for installation of new gear lock but due to one reason or other the complainant avoid for installing or rectification of the gear lock with further assertion that technical team of OP-2 visited the address of the complainant, however, the complainant did not permit them to do the needful.
Complainant has filed rejoinder dated 5.5.94 and has admitted that on 23.3.13 a person from customer team came and tried to rectify the defect but failed and again after seven days the same person came and went back without any solution.
Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence and written arguments. OP-2 has not submitted any affidavit in evidence nor written arguments.
We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have also gone through the record very carefully.
We straightway come to the conclusion whether the gear lock purchased from OP-1 belonging to OP-2 was installed properly or not and whether the complainant deserves to be replaced with new car for the deficiency in installation of gear lock.
Admittedly, the failure of OP-2 in installation of gear lock and damaging the car by making 3 holes in the chassis frame near gear system has been admitted by the OP-2 in its written statement as well as in the letter dated 9.3.13 (Annexure C-7) wherein OP-2 has tendered apology and assured the complainant in rectifying the problem though the OP-2 has alleged non-cooperation by the complainant in not allowing them to rectify the defects but no evidence of any sort has been adduced by OP-2. OP-2 has also chosen not to file any affidavit in evidence. While the complainant has proved the deficiency in installation of gear lock and causing irreparable damage to the chassis frame of the car near gear system by making 3 holes and also another damage to the car by cutting the console of the car but OP-2 has not been able to given any credible evidence to sustain its rebuttal in the written statement. We are constrained to note that there is a damage of the chassis frame of car near the gear system and cutting of console for installation of the gear lock but this damage does not render the car unfit for usage. At this stage, we must observe that at times the complainants on minor deficiency in service or minor defect make mountain out of mole and attribute such deficiency to replace the entire item under complaint.
Quite a considerable time has lapsed after the OP-2 failed to rectify the defect in installation of the gear lock.
Ends of justice would be met by compensating the complainant for injury suffered by him in causing damage to his car to the extent of installation of the gear lock for a prolonged duration.
We, therefore, direct the OP-2 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards installation of the gear lock as well as compensation for harassment caused to the complainant by forcing upon him defective gear lock and causing partial damage to the car for installation of his item within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 16 .01.16.
30.4.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs. 21,533/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of rejection of the claim i.e. 26.8.2003 till the date of realisation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav
