K G GHAWARI Vs. ANBROS MOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is complainant's appeal filed against judgment and order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.834 of 1999. The complaint was filed against Anbros Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ind. Auto Limited through its Managing Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai (presently known as Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. ).

(2.) The complainant purchased a Fiat Uno Delux A. C. Car vide Invoice No.23 dated 25.9.1998 for a sum of Rs.4,18,989/-. The said vehicle was duly registered and registration No. HR-22-B-3316 was allotted to the appellant. The grievance of the appellant that soon after the purchase of the vehicle, it was detected that the alignment of the wheels was out of order, which resulted in the deprecation of the tyres. The matter was brought to the notice of the respondents but they expressed their inability to remove the defects as there was no facility for correcting the alignment of wheels. At the time of first service, the technical staff of the respondent recommended the replacement of fuel guage being defective and front wind shield glass. The respondents, however, failed to replace the same and put of the replacement on one pretext or the other. The alternative protective pipe was also reported to be defective and was to be replaced but its replacement was refused by the respondents. Besides it, the tubes used in the five wheels of the car were of inferior quality and there was no name of the manufacturer of the tyre tubes mentioned on the tyres, which got damaged and the complainant was put to loss as the costs of replacement of the tubes was not reimbursed by the respondents. The engine of the car, it was alleged, suffered from manufacturing defects and it started consuming oil more than it should have consumed. The engine required replacement.

(3.) The appellant further contended that though the O. Ps. promised to provide all types of after-sale-service to the appellant but the same was not provided and on the other hand, the appellant was put to harassment and humiliation. The appellant paid visits to the premises of the respondents on 5.4.1999, 9.6.1999 and 27.8.1999 and besides this, on four more occasions for getting the car repaired and defective parts replaced. The complainant termed the inaction on the part of the respondents as amounting to deficiency in service rendered to the complainant and filed the complaint case and sought the cost of the tubes and tyres used in the car, which were damaged or in alternative, a direction to replace all the tyres and tubes in the five wheels. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was claimed as reimbursement for making frequent visits from Hisar to Chandigarh on the asking of the respondents. The complainant also sought issuance of direction to the respondents to remove the defects like the fault of alignment, replacement of fuel guage and front wind shield glass, alternator protective pipe and fan belt and horn and a direction for removal of defects of consumption of more engine oil and further to prevent the engine from heat. A sum of Rs.20,000/- was claimed as compensation for harassment and mental agony and loss of business or in alternative, a sum of Rs.4,18,989/-, price of the car, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till date of realization or further in the alternative, replacement of the defective car by another new car of the same make.