Ankit Sood son of Sh. Narender Sood M/S Sun Shine Adventure Akhara Bazar, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P.

V/S

The General Manager, Shimla Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd Head Office Bhangrotu ( Ner Chowk) District Mandi, H.P.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite party. The brief facts of the case as set out by the complainant are that he purchased new vehicle Scorpio MZDi bearing engine No. GC-74K69734 chassis No. MA1TB2GCK72K98552 from the show room of the opposite party. After taking the delivery of the vehicle , it was noticed that the middle doors of the vehicle have been re-painted and also have small dents which were obviously not seen at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. The complainant made various complaints verbally/ telephonically to the opposite party, but no response was received till July 2008 and finally on 5th July 2008 the complainant lodged a complaint in this regard with the opposite party by E- mail and in response to that a reply was sent and the opposite party assured that the vehicle would be repainted and all defect would be removed and would get a free Teflon coating . On the assurance of the opposite party, the complainant and his brother Aditya Sood produced the vehicle before the opposite party and when on 5-8-2008 , the complainant went to receive the vehicle , it was revealed that the work was not done properly and the complainant had raised objections but the officials of the opposite party in spite of co-operating , threatened him and had taken signature on the bill forcibly and the vehicle was delivered in same condition .

The complainant requested the opposite party time and again to get the vehicle repaired as promised by the opposite party ,but it had taken no steps. The complainant further averred that the opposite party was served with legal notice but the same was not responded. With these averments , the complainant had sought a direction to the opposite party to get the vehicle repaired as promised and also to pay Rs.90,000/- as damages suffered by the complainant due to non repair of the vehicle and on account of mental harassment and agony. Apart from this , cost of litigation in the sum of Rs.2000/- has also been claimed.

2. The opposite party had failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte.

3. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the entire record .From the perusal of the complaint , it is found that the grievance of the complainant is that the vehicle bearing engine No. GC-74K69734 chassis No. MA1TB2GCK72K98552 purchased by him from the opposite party but after taking delivery it transpired that the middle doors of the vehicle had been repainted and also have some dents which were not seen at the time of the delivery of the vehicle . According to the complainant, he made various requests to the opposite party verbally and telephonically but no positive response was received till July 2008 and finally on 5th July 2008 the complainant lodged his complaint by e mail which is Annexure 2 and the same was responded by the opposite party and he was assured that the vehicle would be repainted and all defects shall be removed .

In support of his above averments , the complainant has pressed into service Annexure -3 copy of e- mail dated 7-7-2008 by the opposite party to the complainant which suggests that the complaint of the complainant was forwarded to Area office of the opposite party at Chandigarh. The complainant further averred that though the vehicle was dropped for repair by him with the opposite party on 5-8-2008 but the work was not done properly and when he raised objections the officials of the opposite party threatened him and obtained his signature on the bill forcibly and then the vehicle was handed over in the same condition.

On the other hand, the opposite party had not opted to contest the complaint and was proceeded against exparte which shows that it had nothing to say in the matter except to admit the claim of the complainant. The complainant had also adduced in evidence copy of registration certificate Annexure -1 which reflects that the vehicle was sold to the complainant by the opposite party and registration certificate was issued on 16-1-2008 . Not only this the complainant has supported his averments made in the complaint by placing on record legal notice Annexure -4 and job card Annexure -5 issued by the opposite party on 30-7-2008. The complainant has also supported the allegations made in the complaint by means of his own affidavit. Since there is nothing contrary to the relief sought by the complainant in the complaint, we hold that the opposite party had been deficient in providing service to the complainant .



4 In view of what has been discussed herein above, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and the opposite party is directed to remove all the defects in the doors of the vehicle and to repaint the same with teflon coating to the satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which to pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty from the date of receipt of this order till the doors are repainted and defects in the doors are removed to the satisfaction of the complainant. In addition to this, the opposite party shall also pay to the complainant Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation.