Complainant Man Mahesh Sharma through the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter for short the Act) has prayed for the issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite party to make repair of his vehicle and to deliver the same to him immediately. Opposite party is directed to  pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. on account of mental torture, physical harassment and financial loss caused by delivering defective vehicle to him and thereafter, the opposite party failed to remove defects from the vehicle, even during the warranty period alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a car make Swift D Zire bearing R.C. No.PB-35-W-5552 Chassis No.MA3FSEBIS00426324 Engine No.D13ASI33764 from opposite party. He purchased the above mentioned vehicle for running his business smoothly. On 24.4.2017, his car met with an accident and he took the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party for necessary repair. After few days, the opposite party delivered his vehicle after carrying on repair. His vehicle is having manufacturing defect and it is creating so many problems from the day of its purchase. Due to heating problem, he took the vehicle to the workshop of opposite party again on 05.05.2017 for necessary repair but instead of repairing the vehicle, the opposite party stated making baseless excuses regarding the warranty condition and stated that due to overheating, the engine is making unusual noise and his consent is required for opening the engine and for assessing the damages. However, when the vehicle was delivered to the opposite party, at the time of accident, there was no defect in the Engine of the vehicle, although there were other defects in the vehicle. The vehicle was handed over to him on 5.5.2017 after the satisfaction of the opposite party. However, the vehicle stopped working on the same day and on his complaint, the opposite party towed the vehicle to its workshop. There is no fault in the engine, but due to negligence and carelessness of the opposite party, the vehicle was not properly repaired, when it was delivered to him on 5.5.2017 and as such due to the fault of the opposite party, the vehicle breakdown on 5.5.2017 within few hours of its repair. The opposite party has issued an illegal letter dated 9.5.2017 and 19.5.2017 to him which were unwarranted and caused undue harassment to him. He also sent a letter dated 18.5.2017 for necessary repairs of his vehicle to the opposite party. He has further pleaded that it is the duty of opposite party to repair the vehicle properly, as the vehicle was within warranty period, when it was sent to workshop of the opposite party on 25.4.2017. Due to negligence of opposite party, some major breakdowns of his vehicle have occurred time and again for which the opposite party is solely liable. The vehicle is still lying in the illegal custody of opposite party since 5.5.2017, which has caused mental torture, physical harassment and financial loss to him for no fault on his part.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.          Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party; the present complaint is without any cause of action and the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. On merits, it was submitted that the Car bearing No.PB 35 W 5552 Swift Dzire belonging to the complainant met with an accident at Damtal and was brought to this Accidental repair workshop on 24 April 2017. At the time of the receipt of the vehicle it was informed to the customer that his vehicle engine is smelling and it is most likely that the vehicle is over heated. The vehicle job card was opened on 25 April 2017 after the survey by Mr.Surjeet Bawa, Surveyor of the Insurance Company. The Body shop department of the opposite party after repairs while handing over vehicle to the complainant informed him that the vehicle engine needs to be repaired in their mechanical workshop at mammon and the complainant has also informed that engine repair cannot be covered in the Insurance being a consequential damage after the accident. The opposite party carried out the accidental repairs of the vehicle of the complainant as per the instructions of the complainant and the approval of the insurance company.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

5.       Sh.Satish Dogra Sr.Service Advisor tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while (at the same time) taking the due judicial-notice of the non production of some documents that were otherwise vital for the current proceedings to place/base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act. We find that the present dispute/complaint has arisen as a result of the alleged unsatisfactory repairs at the hands of the opposite party vendor workshop who were being authorized service center otherwise (vide the Zero Dep. Ins. Policy) were fully liable and responsible to provide an efficient after sales service including the zero-fee but satisfactory repairs to their customer/consumer vendees. However, we find that the titled opposite party vendor has failed to provide the requisite repairs to the complainant’s accidental insured car that was duly brought to the OP vendor workshop after the accident since 25.04.2017.

7.       We further find that the complainant has alleged ‘manufacturing defect’ in the insured car but has not produced any evidence to prove his allegation. Thus, the titled OP Vendor (along with the manufacturers) gets absolved of the refund/replacement liability through the failure of the complainant to prove his allegation of the manufacturing defect.

8.       The complainant has not reported of the present repair-status of his insured car to the forum but the OP Vendors have surpassed the complainant in ignoring their responsibility and statutory liability towards the consumer-welfare by not-producing some cogent evidence to prove its allegation of consequential damage to the car except the job-card dated 25.04.2017 (Ex.OP2) that carries a simple mention by one Surjeet Bawa (New India) as: ‘Vehicle run by customer after the accident - Engine overheated; under Recommendations under the heading Remarks; that in no way proves the OP allegation of consequential damage. We deem it as ‘refusal’ to provide repairs to the ‘insured car’ otherwise within the extended warranty as purchased from the OP Vendor but for no good explained pretext etc. Somehow, the vendor Service Centre had first provided the requisite repairs to the accident Car but it again went out of order and the OP service provider was allegedly re-approached to provide service-repairs but the same were not satisfactorily provided and thus prompted the present complaint. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complainant has been able to statutorily establish the complaint contented allegations. 

9.       In the light of all above, we partly allow the present claim and thus ORDER and direct the OP Vendor (service provider) to re-check the Car in question exhaustively and keep it repaired and in right working order for free of cost delivery to the complainant within a period of ‘15’ working days on receipt of the copy of the present orders besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation  within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

April 09, 2018.                                                 Member.

*MK*