Complainant Jagdish Raj vide the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.6974/- and to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, agony and inconvenience alongwith Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner of the Etios RS. Some defect was developed in the head lights of Car Etios and he approached to the workshop of opposite party to get repair the head lights of the car and the employees of opposite party told him that these lights could not be repaired and there is necessity to replace these lights with the new lights. Accordingly, he got replaced old headlights with new headlights from workshop of the opposite party and they have given one year warranty. Opposite party received Rs.3487/- of each light and as such he paid Rs.6974/- as per invoice no.JR118/0090002 dated 12.9.2017 Job no.0066950. He has next pleaded that after a few days of the installments of the new lights, the defect was occurred in both the lights and light was not running in proper condition and not giving proper light to the vehicle and he again approached to opposite party and made complaint in this regard, but opposite party is not ready to rectify the defaults of the light. Opposite party told him that this fault cannot be rectified and there is necessity of installments of new lights. He requested them to install new lights because at the time of purchase, the lights were in the warranty of one year, now the warranty period has not elapsed. So he is entitled to get the new lights according to the warranty period but opposite party not failed to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. A legal notice dated 20.4.2018 posted on 5.5.2018 served upon the opposite party but inspite of elapse of more than 15 days the opposite party has failed to reply the legal notice and to comply with the same and make the payment of claim amount. Hence, this complaint.

3.         Opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is vague, lacks material particulars and does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite party as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed; the complainant is owner of the Etios RS. Some defect was developed in the head lights of Car and he approached to the workshop of opposite party to get repaired  and the opposite party told that these lights could not repaired and there is necessity to replace these lights with new lights; the complainant according to the advice of the employee of opposite party replaced old head lights with new head lights from workshop  with one year warranty of new head lights with terms and conditions if the same uses accordingly but the complainant concealed some other facts from the court that he has repaired some other defects of his car from the workshop and that is not mentioned in his complaint intentionally and by which he was fully satisfied after getting repaired his car from workshop and gave good remarks of services to the workshop of opposite party and the complainant was running his Etios Car as tour and travel and was regular customer of the workshop and always remain out of station and due to that he has not kept running head lights in  proper way as per the terms and conditions of the company due to that the head lights got defective these things already cleared to the complainant before installing the head lights. Moreover the complainant visited number of times to the office of the opposite party workshop and got his car head lights repaired. Thus, the complainant has no lucus standi to file this complaint. On merits, it was admitted that as per the advice of the workshop employee new head lights were installed with one year warranty with terms and conditions of uses of the head lights. It was correct that the complainant served legal notice but the opposite party called the complainant telephonically but he refused to come to the workshop.  All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.      Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C1/A, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex.C11.

5.    Alongwith the written statement, opposite party has filed documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2.

6.      Written arguments filed by the opposite party stating that these arguments are full and final.

7.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments filed by the opposite party as well as oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

8.     Ex.C-8 is the photocopy of the invoice whereby the complainant got his car repaired from the opposite party. During repair Head Lights of the car was replaced and the opposite party charged Rs.6974/- (Rs.3487/- each) as per invoice No.JR 118/0090002 dated 12.9.2017 Job No.0066950. It is alleged that the opposite party gave one year warranty for the new head lights. It is the case of the complainant that after a few days of the installment of new head lights, some problem occurred in both the lights and they were not giving proper light. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the same. But the opposite party told the complainant that the defect could not be rectified and the lights need to be replaced with new ones. The complainant told the opposite party that as  the lights were within the warranty period, the opposite party was bound to replace the same with new ones but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Opposite party has also specifically admitted in   para 2 of its written statement that it had installed new head lights with one year warranty. But in para 3 of  its written statement it has averred that the complainant never visited the workshop of the opposite party for getting the defect rectified within warranty period.

9.     But Ex.C-10 is the legal notice dated 20.4.2018 and Ex.C-11 is the postal receipt dated 5.5.2018 of the said legal notice.  The head lights were replaced on 12.9.2017 and they were under one year warranty. The legal notice is dated 20.4.2018, which shows that the defect occurred in the new head lights within warranty period and the opposite party was bound to replace the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.

10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint with a direction to the opposite party to replace the head lights with a new one of the same brand and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.6974/- to the complainant, the same being the price of the head lights. Opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                     

             (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                        (Jyotsna)

July 14, 2021                                                       Member

*MK*