Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The short case of the Complainant is that, she purchased a four-wheeler car from the OP No. 4 at a cost of Rs. 11,00,000/- . She got delivery of the said car on 30-12-2015. It is alleged by the Complainant that from the very beginning the car in question was beset with different problems for which, the car had to be sent to the service centre on several occasions.  As numerous servicing failed to resolve the problem permanently, out of her wit’s end, she sent Lawyer’s notice to the OPs.  In reply to such notice, notwithstanding the OP No. 5 asked her to send the car to the workshop, as in absence of due service of the car in question, she had to incur huge expenditure towards hiring of cars on rental basis, she demanded monetary compensation from them before sending the defective car to the workshop of the OP No. 5 for necessary repairing.  As the OPs were reluctant to oblige her in this regard, the Complainant initiated the instant complaint demanding adequate compensation from the OPs. 

On notice, OP No. 1 appeared to defend its case and filed WV denying all the material allegations as mentioned in the petition of complaint. The OP No. 1 submitted that, on receipt of Lawyer’s notice, it gained knowledge about the alleged defects of the car for the first time and immediately thereafter, the Complainant was requested to send her vehicle to the workshop of the OP No. 5 to enable it to attend to her complaint. It was promised to the Complainant that following necessary servicing, she would not face any difficulty with the car.  However, as the Complainant refrained from sending the car to the workshop to do the needful, nothing could be done to put an end to this vexed issue.

OP Nos. 2 to 5 too initially contested the case by filing WV.  They submitted that, at the time of PDI and mandatory servicing, neither any problem was detected with the car nor the Complainant raked up any issue.  After receiving lawyer’s notice from the Complainant, she was urged to send the car to the workshop for carrying out necessary repairing work.  However, as the Complainant did not do so, nothing could be done to resolve the issue.

Both sides filed Affidavit-in-Chief in support of their respective contentions and also answered the questionnaire being put forth from the other side.

Be it mentioned here that, at the time of hearing, none of the OPs turned up to defend their case.  Therefore, the case was heard ex parte.

It appears from the record that the Complainant lodged complaint with the OPs through her lawyer for the first time vide letter dated 07-07-2016.  By such letter, although the Complainant sought to paint a very poor picture about the condition of the car and the standard of service being rendered by the OPs, I afraid, the photocopies of the Job sheets on record do not establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Take for example the allegation of the Complainant that the air conditioning system of the car is not properly functioning from the very first day.  If indeed that happened to be the case, she would definitely knock the door of the workshop soon after taking delivery of the car. The solitary Job Sheet filed in this regard is dated 23-05-2016.  Be that as it may, if indeed the problem with the AC system of the car remained unresolved even after due servicing, the Complainant could put a dissent note on the Job sheet while taking delivery of the same on 27-05-2016. No such document is furnished from the side of the Complainant.    

Similarly, it is though alleged in the complaint that owing to poor functioning of the car, the Complainant was compelled to hire cars on rental basis burning a deep hole in her pocket, not a single money receipt is filed to buttress such point. 

It is alleged by the Complainant that the OPs delivered two nos. speakers instead of four.  I fail to understand, if it was indeed so, why did she take delivery of the music system in the first place.

As for the other problems mentioned in the petition of complaint, it does not appear to me that that same were of very serious nature.  It is always desirable to settle a dispute amicably; more so, when the other side does not shy away from discharging its responsibility. 

Considering all aspects, I deem it appropriate to direct the OPs to attend to the complaints of the Complainant with top priority and utter seriousness and redress her grievance once for all free of cost. The Complainant shall send the car to the workshop of the OPs within one month from the date of this order.  

Thus the complaint case is allowed in part.