HIMGIRI MOTORS Vs. RAM MEHAR SINGH KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above mentioned three appeals have arisen out of the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala in Complaint No. 02 of 2.1.2003 which relates to the defect in the vehicle/car purchased by the complainant Ram Mehar Singh Kundu from the appellant -opposite parties.

(2.) IT is admitted case of the parties that the complainant (respondent in these appeals) had purchased a Tata Indica car DLE(M) F -II bearing registration No. HR -O6H -9990 from the opposite party, No. 3 M/s. Metro Motors, Ambala Cantt vide invoice No. PCD021724 dated 7.1.2002, the warranty of which was for three years. According to complainant the front rims of the above said car got defected and developed bent due to which both front wheel tyres and engine of the said car had been damaged. The alignment and balancing of the car remained unbalanced and the complainant had to pay regularly for this problem. The complainant approached to the opposite party No. 5 Himgiri Motors, Panipat on 17.1.2002 who charged Rs. 1,354 as service charges of the vehicle but refused to replace the damaged front rims and tyres of the car. Thereafter, not satisfied with the services of the opposite party No. 5, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 at Ambala Cantt and got inspected the vehicle but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to provide service to the complainant. In the month of February, 2002 the complainant requested the opposite party No. 5 to replaced the damaged A.C. Idler upon which the A.C. was replaced by the opposite party No. 4 by charging Rs. 975 on 2.4.2002. It was further stated by the complainant in his complaint that due to defect and poor services provided by the respondents, the whole engine of the car and its balancing, alignment remained disturbed and the vehicle was consuming excess fuel. Whenever the complainant visited the opposite parties, they misbehaved with him. A legal notice dated 18.2.2002 was served to the opposite parties. On these grounds, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, Ambala seeking direction to the opposite parties to provide a new car to the complainant by removing such types of manufacturing defects and also to pay Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment or to refund the cost price of the car Rs. 3,41,276 along with 18% interest from the date of purchase.

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement, whereas the opposite party Nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed their separate written statements. The opposite parties while resisting the claim of the complainant on similar grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint and stated that the complainant used to bring the vehicle to the opposite parties for its routine service and at no point of time the complainant complained about any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It was further stated that the opposite parties had been providing proper services to the complainant for servicing the vehicle to the entire satisfaction of the complainant as is evident from the different job cards issued to the complainants at the relevant times. The opposite parties further stated that the defects, if any, in the car might had occurred due to mishandling and mismanagement of the car and there was no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties denied for charging of A.C. from the complainant and stated that this amount of Rs. 1,354 was charged as service charges in a routine manner as mentioned in the job card dated 17.1.2002. The opposite party Nos. l, 2, 3 and 5 denied the service of legal notice dated 18.2.2002, as alleged by the complainant. The vehicle in question had met with an accident on 6.4.2002 and as such there was no liability of the opposite parties with respect to the defects in the rims and other parts of the vehicle, though the accidental defects were removed when the vehicle was brought to the workshop of the opposite parties on 6.4.2002. With these averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint vide its order dated 31.3.2005 by granting following relief: "Hence, the present complaint succeeds, liable to be accepted and the same is hereby allowed with costs. The respondents are jointly and severally directed to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days after the receipt of the order