DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Manu K. Bhandari, S/o Sh. K.B. Bhandari, R/o H.No.82-A, Sector 8, Panchkula

…..Complainant

                                                V E R S U S

1.       Harmony Honda, Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Ind. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

2.       M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Ms.Anamika Mehra, Counsel for the complainant.

                     Sh.Rajesh Verma, Counsel for OP No.1.

                     Sh.Karan Nehra, Counsel for OP No.2. 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Manu K.Bhandari, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Harmony Honda & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased one Honda City 1.5 S MT car from OP No.1 on 24.11.2008. It was alleged that when he started using the A.C. of the car, in February, 2009, it transpired that the same was totally ineffective, and a foul smell used to be emitted from the A.C. Unit. According to the complainant, whenever the vehicle was sent for service, to the service centre of the OPs, a complaint was made regarding ineffectiveness of the A.C., as also of emission of foul smell therefrom and every time the officials of OP No.1 assured that necessary corrective measures would be taken, cause of foul smell shall be removed and effectiveness of the A.C. would be set in order. However, each time OP No.1 against the assurances given by it, failed to set right the things. When all the frantic efforts, made by the complainant, failed to elicit any fruitful results, a legal notice  Annexure C-3, as a measure of last resort, was got served, calling upon the OPs  to replace the car, but to no avail. The emails exchanged between the complainant and the OPs were of no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

2.                OP No.1 in its written version, admitted the purchase of the car, in question, by the complainant, from it. It was denied that the A.C. of the car was ineffective. It was also denied that there was any kind of foul smell, emitting from the A.C. unit. It was stated that whenever, the problem in the A.C. unit was brought to the notice of the technicians of OP No.1, the same was recorded in the respective job cards of the car and was attended to, by them efficiently and effectively to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant. It was further stated that problem of A.C. cooling was checked and it was found O.K. It was further stated that the car, in question, was delivered to the complainant, in a perfect merchantable automobile, without any defect, in any of its parts. It was further stated that there was neither any problem, with regard to the working, efficiency and effectiveness of the A.C. unit, fitted in the car nor it was emitting any foul smell.  It was further stated that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP No.1 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

3.                OP No.2 in its written version, admitted the purchase of the car, in question, by the complainant, in November 2008. It was stated that for the first time, a complaint, regarding ineffectiveness of the A.C. and emission of foul smell therefrom was made in June, 2009. It was further stated that the A.C. system of the vehicle was checked and found in perfect working condition, as per the given specifications. It was further stated that, whenever the defects were brought to the notice of OP No.2, by the complainant, the same were rectified to his entire satisfaction. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of OP No.2 nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint vide order dated 10.4.2012 and passed the following operative order.

“The OPs are, jointly and severally, directed to replace the entire AC Units of the car in question, without charging anything from the complainant on account of replacement, repair or labour charges etc. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.

          This order be complied with by both the OPs, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.01.2010, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.”

6.                Feeling aggrieved, both the complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 filed separate appeals, which were disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh. The appeal filed by the complainant bearing No.166 of 2012, was dismissed, as having been rendered infructuous, with no order as to costs. The appeal No.176 of 2012 filed by Harmony Honda – OP No.1 and the appeal No.185 of 2012 filed by M/s Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. – OP No.2 were accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order was set aside and the complaint was remanded back to this Forum with a direction to take into consideration the detailed objections filed by the OPs, discuss and analyze the same, in context of the report of the panel of experts, the other evidence and record, and thereafter, decide the case, afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the parties, of being heard.  

7.                After the case was received by remand, it was listed for arguments. However, on 10.9.2012 an application for placing on record the objections and an affidavit in support of the objections was filed by OP No.2, which has been opposed.

8.                We have gone through the evidence on record, written arguments filed by the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties in the application as well as in the main complaint.

9.                As far as the application of OP No.2 for filing of the objections and affidavit of Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Service Manager is concerned, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for OP No.2 that the objections and affidavit in support thereof will be helpful in the proper and fair adjudication of the matter. On the other hand, it has been urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the objections and affidavit cannot be filed at this stage because no such permission was granted by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

10.              We have carefully considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission shows that the case was remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to take into consideration the detailed objections filed by the OPs, discuss and analyze the same, in context of the report of the panel of experts, the other evidence and record and, thereafter, decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the parties of being heard. Significantly no permission was granted to the OPs to file any fresh affidavit or objections. Since both the parties had led evidence prior to the decision of the complaint by this Forum on 10.4.2012 and the Hon’ble State Commission while deciding the appeal did not permit the OPs to file any fresh affidavit or objections, we are of the view that no case is made out to allow OP No.2 to produce fresh objections and affidavit of Mr.Jaswinder Singh at this stage. Accordingly, the application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

11.              The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that the Honda City Car was purchased by the complainant on 24.11.2008 and during the winter season the usage of AC was not required. The complainant started using the air conditioner of the vehicle in the month of February, 2009, when it transpired that the same was emitting a foul smell and was also non effective. Thereafter, the complainant got in touch with Harmony Honda and the officials of the company gave an assurance that the defect would be removed. She has submitted that this fact was also revealed to the company at the time of free check up of the car at 10000 KM. She has further argued that the repeated visits of the complainant to the company give a clear indication that he was not satisfied with the services of the company and the company was unable to eradicate the defect of the air conditioner and the smell emitting there-from. She has urged that on 12.10.2009 the complainant experienced foul smell with unbearable fumes when he was traveling from Patiala and he informed Mr.Puneet Bedi and took the vehicle to the company on the next day. On 13.10.2009 Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Manager of Harmony Honda accompanied the complainant for test drive and one of the mechanics removed the air filter from the AC-Unit but the smell persisted. The complainant told Mr.Jaswinder Singh that he could keep the car and set the problem right and on 16.10.2009, the complainant received a telephonic message from Mr.Jaswinder Singh that vehicle was in perfect working condition. However, after sometime Mr.Jaswinder Singh again informed that smell had again started and the complainant asked him that he should call him to collect the vehicle, when he was satisfied. On 22.10.2009 on receiving the telephonic call, the complainant went to the company, where one Mr.Rakesh, Representative of the company tried to convince him by trying to explain the technicalities but the manufacturing defect from the car could not be removed and the defective AC kept on giving foul smell. Mr.Rakesh could not dispute the fact that the AC of the car was giving foul smell and was ineffective. The vehicle was handed back to the complainant on 23.10.2009 and at that time satisfaction of the complainant was not got recorded by the official of the company.

12.              The learned Counsel for the complainant has further submitted that on 5.11.2009, the complainant served a legal notice on OPs No.1 and 2 giving details of the problems and harassment faced by him. He also sent emails to the OPs. She has contended that the AC of the car still emits foul smell and the complainant is willing to take the Counsel of the OPs on test drive in order to substantiate the fact that the said defect is still persisting.

13.              The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the short orders recorded on the file w.e.f. 10.8.2010 onwards and has argued that no doubt this Forum had passed an order for examination of the vehicle of the complainant from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh on 10^th August, 2010 and the car in question was actually examined on 11.4.2011 vide report dated 14.4.2011, yet it cannot be stated that the complainant was at fault. She has submitted that another application for appointing any other car agency for examining the defective AC was made because the fee of the expert committee was excessive. When that application was dismissed, the vehicle was got examined by the complainant from the Punjab Engineering College and the report was given in his favour. She has submitted that initially, the OPs filed an application for summoning of the technical expert for cross examination but, thereafter, they confined themselves to seek their reply on interrogatories, which was submitted. She has contended that all the three experts were having a lot of experience of teaching in Mechanical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College. She has contended that identification of the specific defect and its possible solution were neither within the scope of the investigation nor was fee charged from them. The report of the experts Dr.Sushant Sameer, Mr.Gopal Dass and Dr.V.P.Singh is categoric and the defect pointed out by the complainant was found by the expert committee. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Gajanan Y.Mandrekar 1997(1) CLT NC 431 and has argued that where an Expert Committee is appointed by the Court, it is not open for the parties to dispute the same. She has contended that the Expert Committee was appointed in order to see whether the smell was being emitted from the AC Unit or not and the only ground on which the application for appointment of expert was contested by the OPs was that it was a delayed application. She has contended that the order dated 10.8.2010 was not challenged by the OPs by filing a revision petition before the Hon’ble Commission and the same having attained finality, the OPs cannot be permitted to raise objections against the report.  She has also contended that OPs duly participated in the examination of the vehicle and did not raise any finger at that time. The objections have been filed only by Mr.Amit Sinha, who is a Legal Manager and not the Mechanical Engineer. She has also argued that Mr.Jaswinder Singh did not make any endorsement that he had raised any objection to the report. The learned Counsel for the complainant has also cited Khem Raj Sharma Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma 2008-CPR-1-318 and has argued that in the similar circumstances where the expert committee found that the vehicle was suffering from manufacturing defect, the petitioner was held entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle, lifetime tax and EMI along with interest. The learned Counsel for the complainant has strenuously argued that the car was taken to the workshop of the OPs on several occasions within a short span but the OPs could not rectify the defect, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed by him.

14.              On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the OPs have drawn out attention to para No.12 of the order dated 1.8.2012 of the Hon’ble State Commission, wherein, it was observed that the panel of experts was appointed by the District Forum on 10.8.2010, whereas, the car was produced before the experts in April, 2011 and no plausible reason was furnished by the complainant as to why the car was produced before the experts after such a long delay. Apart from that the OPs No.1 and 2 had filed detailed objections running into a number of pages to the report dated 13.4.2011 of the panel of the experts but the same were not even touched by the District Forum in its judgment. The learned Counsel for the OPs has urged that the application for sending the vehicle of the complainant to the Mechanical Laboratory of Punjab Engineering College was made at the stage of final arguments and the complainant deliberately did not produce the vehicle before the panel of experts of Punjab Engineering College till 11.4.2011 for inspection. He has also argued that the letter dated 7.2.2010 sent by the Head of Mechanical Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh shows that the complainant did not pay the charges to the institute nor brought the vehicle to the institute for inspection. The learned Counsel for the OPs have argued that the vehicle in question was purchased on 24.11.2008 and it was got inspected by the experts of Punjab Engineering College on 11.4.2011 after about 2 ½ years of purchase. He has argued that the circumstances point out foul play on the part of the complainant. He has argued that since the matter was at the stage of final arguments, the application for appointment of panel of experts of Punjab Engineering College shows that the complainant tried to fill up the lacunae at the time of his arguments.

15.              The learned Counsel for the OPs has further argued that the inspection of the car was done by the professors of Punjab Engineering College as experts whereas, Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as under :-

“where the complaint alleges a defect in the goods which cannot be determined without proper analysis of test of the goods, the District Forum shall obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant, seal it and authenticate it in the manner prescribed and refer the sample so sealed to the appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in the complaint or from any other defect and to report its findings thereon to the District Forum within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of the reference or within such extended period as may be granted by the District Forum.”

Further as per Section 2 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the appropriate laboratory means a laboratory or organization – (i) recognized by the Central Government; (ii) recognized by a State Governments, subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf; or (iii) any such laboratory or organization established by or under any law for the time being in force, which is maintained, financed or aided by the Central Government or a State Government for carrying out analysis or test of any goods with a view to determining whether such goods suffer from any defect.

16.              The learned Counsel for the OPs have urged that the panel of experts in this case does not fall within the prescribed guidelines of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They have contended that the experts appointed were neither competent nor equipped to look into the sophisticated car of such a standard. The learned Counsel for the OPs have urged that the experts have failed to pinpoint the defect in the AC as to why such foul smell was being emitted. The report submitted by the Punjab Engineering College is mere a statement without any conclusive evidence. No technical aspect of the AC was evaluated to find fault in AC Compressor, Cooling coil, Receiver dryer etc. No empirical data pertaining to AC ineffectiveness was submitted. Further the reason for arriving at a conclusion of foul smell and correcting the same was not stated in the report, which proves that the report is perverse and cannot be looked into. They have further contended that the gas used in the AC by Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. is an odorless gas. He has further argued that no problem relating to foul smell has been technically found when the AC system of the vehicle was functioning. They have argued that the experts of the Punjab Engineering College were not having the requisite tools, with which the required tests could be performed. The objections raised by the Service Engineers of the OPs were never considered by the inspecting agency. No diagnostic tool was used during the inspection to smell out the smell in the AC Unit. The learned Counsel for the OPs have fervently pleaded that the expert report nowhere shows that any duct of the AC was opened to judge any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. They have also urged that the complainant did not file any reply to the objections of the OPs.

17.              The learned Counsel for the OPs have also argued that a list of the interrogatories available at pages No.247 of 258 was submitted for the three experts of the panel and their replies at pages No.259 to 264 show that the same are quite vague and cryptic. They did not give any reply as to why the AC ducts were not opened and test results of technical aspect of AC of the vehicle were not evaluated. They did not indicate the cause of the bad odor in the AC. They did not reply that the odor could be attributed to multiple reasons of improper maintenance, tampering, repairs, change of gas, wiring, blower service etc. The learned Counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that the report of the experts of the Punjab Engineering College cannot be looked into or relied upon to determine whether the AC system of the vehicle was emitting foul smell or the same was defective.

18.              After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, we find considerable force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the complainant and feel that the same must prevail. A perusal of the file reveals that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from Harmony Honda on 24.11.2008 vide invoice, copy of which is Annexure C-1. The copy of retail invoice dated 1.6.2009 – Annexure C-2 shows that the car in question was checked by Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. and as per the details of the customer requests/Job Instruction/Job/Parts AC cooling check (was conducted) and smell was coming inside the car.  However, the check was found OK. The said retail invoice is not signed by the complainant or his representative. The fact that the complainant did not append any satisfaction note goes to show that he was not satisfied with the rectification of the defects. The repair order dated 6.10.2009 at page No.67 shows that the complainant again made a complaint that smell comes inside the car. The copy of Service Check Sheet dated 24.11.2008 at page No.69 also shows customer complained that AC cooling was too low. The complainant also sent legal notice through registered post on 5.11.2009 (available at  page No.71 to 77) to the OPs alleging ineffectiveness of the AC and foul smell coming from the vehicle. He also alleged that Mr.Jaswinder Singh pointed out that probably there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. He also alleged that Mr.Rakesh (the representative of the OP) could not dispute the fact that the AC of the car was giving a foul smell and was ineffective on 23.10.2009 after keeping the vehicle for 10 days, Mr.Jaswinder Singh came to his residence and delivered the vehicle. However, his satisfaction was not got recorded by the official of the company after delivery of the vehicle to him. The complainant also sent a letter to Mr.Umesh Bhutani, Regional Head of the OP, which is available at page No.79 of the file complaining about the smell in the car. The copies of email messages at pages No.80 to 83, 85 and 86 also show that the complainant intimated the OPs that the problems in the car were persisting and there was no improvement in the situation. Significantly the OPs did not file any affidavit of Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Manager that he did not point out that there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Mr.Rakesh also did not file any affidavit to this effect that he could not dispute the fact that the AC of the car was giving foul smell and was ineffective. No doubt as per documents on record, the complainant made a complaint about the foul smell vide retail invoice dated 1.6.2009, yet it is important to note that the car was purchased on 24.11.2008 during winter days and the AC is usually used during warmer months i.e. May and June, therefore, it cannot be stated that the AC of the car was working properly in the beginning and it started giving problem due to poor maintenance. The documents mentioned above clearly show that the complainant has been complaining about the defective AC system and emission of foul smell in his car since a long time but the OPs have failed to convince him that his car is perfectly OK.

19.              It is true that the application for sending the vehicle to the Mechnical Laboratory of Punjab Engineering College was made by the complainant at a late stage and order for inspection by the Punjab Engineering College authorities was passed by this Forum on 10.8.2010 and the car was actually inspected on 11.4.2011 but we feel that the circumstances do not suggest any foul play on the part of complainant. A perusal of the order sheet of the file after 10.8.2010 shows that the complainant later on moved another application for appointing any car agency for examining the defective AC on the ground that the fee of the expert committee was excessive and the same was not economical by any stretch of imagination. That application was dismissed on 24.1.2011. Of course, the fee of the Expert Committee of the Punjab Engineering College was deposited late, yet it is not the case of the OPs that the foul smell inside the vehicle was on account of delay in the inspection of the vehicle by the expert committee of the Punjab Engineering College. Pertinently, the car was inspected by Dr.V.P.Singh, Head of Mechanical Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College, Dr.Sushant Sameer, Assistant Professor and Mr.Gopal Dass W.I. in Mechanical Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College. Both Dr.Sushant Sameer and Dr.V.P.Singh are having professional qualification of Ph.D in Engineering and Mr.Gopal Dass is ITI Apprentice in Motor Mechanic having an experience of 23 years. The car was inspected in the presence of Mr.Manu K.Bhandari, owner of the car and Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Service Manager, Harmony Honda of Joshi Automobile Pvt. Ltd., who were present at the time of test drive. On enquiry from the said persons and after inspecting and test drive of the car, it was found by the above experts that a foul smell was coming out of the ducts of the air conditioning system of the car, which was not bearable during the test drive. During test drive, the vehicle was driven at different speed and at different blower speed of the air conditioning system but the smell was continuing through out the test drive.

20.              It is true that as per provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the sample of the defective goods is to be sent to the appropriate laboratory and the Punjab Engineering College is not recognized by the Central Government as an appropriate laboratory under the Act. However, Section 2(1) (a) of Consumer Protection Act reads as under :-

“[(a)  “appropriate Laboratory” means a laboratory or organization :--

(i)      recognized by the Central Government;

(ii)     recognized by a State Government, subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by the Central Government in his behalf; or

(iii)    any such laboratory or organization established by or under any law for the time being in force which is maintained, financed or aided by the Central Government or a State Government for carrying out analysis or test of any goods with a view to determining whether such goods suffer from any defect;]”

                   A bare perusal of the above provision shows that the Punjab Engineering College is covered under clause (iii) of Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. In the instant case, it is worth noting that the order dated 10.8.2010 in pursuance to which the vehicle was sent to the Punjab Engineering College authorities for inspection was not challenged by the OPs by filing a revision petition before the Hon’ble Commission. The OPs duly participated in the examination of the vehicle and did not say that since Punjab Engineering College was not an appropriate laboratory, therefore, they were not ready to participate in the inspection. The objections against the report were not filed by any Mechanical/Automobile Engineer but by Mr.Amit Sinha, Legal Manager. At that stage Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Service Manager did not raise any objection that he was not permitted to give objection to the inspection report. Otherwise also since the District Forum appointed the Punjab Engineering College to get the vehicle in question examined and opine whether there were defects in the car as alleged by the complainant or not and the car was examined by the panel of three experts, it cannot be stated that their report is inadmissible in evidence. In National Seeds Corporation Limited Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & ANR I (2012) CPJ  1 SC, the District Forum had appointed agricultural experts as Court Commissioners and directed them to inspect fields of respondents and submit report about status of crops and reports unmistakably revealed that crops had failed because of defective seeds. After examining the reports, the District Forum felt satisfied that the seeds were defective and the respondents were not called upon to provide samples of seeds for sending them for analysis or test in an appropriate laboratory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that the procedure adopted by the District Forum was in no way contrary to Section 13 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act and the appellant could not seek annulment of well-reasoned orders passed by the Consumer Fora on the specious ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not followed.

21.              In the instant case also we feel that when the car in question was inspected by the panel of three experts of Mechanical Engineering Department of Punjab Engineering College, the report cannot be rejected simply on this ground that Punjab Engineering College is not recognized by Central Government/State Government to be an appropriate laboratory. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Dr.Sushant Sameer, Dr.V.P.Singh and Mr.Gopal Dass were not experts, nonetheless we feel that the fact whether a vehicle is emitting a foul smell or not can be judged even by a common man. In this case, the test driving and inspection took place in the presence of Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Service Manager of Harmony Honda, Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and the vehicle was driven at different speed and different blower speed of air conditioning system but the smell continued through the test drive, therefore, it is established that the car of the complainant has a manufacturing defect of emission of foul smell.

22.              We may also mention that despite the fact that the learned Counsel for the complainant urged that the learned Counsel for the OPs could themselves travel in the car and experience the foul smell being emitted by the AC system, yet the learned Counsel for the OPs did not accept this offer during arguments.

23.              Adverting to the objections of the OPs against the expert report, it is true that the experts of Punjab Engineering College did not open the AC ducts and blower nor evaluated the components like AC compressor, Cooling Coil, Receiver dryer etc. It is also true that they did not give any cause of bad odor. It is also true that they did not explain as to whether the odor could be attributed to improper maintenance, tempering, repairs, change of gas, wiring, blower service etc. However, the report of Dr.V.P.Singh etc. cannot be discarded on these grounds because the scope of their investigation was limited to the examination of the car and to opine whether the defects in the car, as alleged by the complainant were existing or not. The possible solutions were neither within the scope of the investigation nor any fee was charged by them for that purpose. The OPs also did not produce any report of their expert to show that the allegations of foul smell from the AC of the disputed car are false. After weighing the evidence on record, we do not find any just ground to doubt the veracity of expert report of Dr.V.P.Singh etc. of Punjab Engineering College. The mere fact that the OPs carried out the inspection of the vehicle as per their job cards and found the condition of the car OK does not warrant that the grievance of the complainant was removed particularly when no satisfaction note of the complainant was recorded. It was not for the complainant to give a scientific explanation as to why the foul smell was being emitted from the AC of his car. It was for the OPs to show that the emission of foul smell was just an imagination on the part of complainant. We are of the considered opinion that when Dr.Sushant Sameer, Dr.V.P.Singh and Mr.Gopal Dass found in the presence of Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Service Manager of Harmony Honda of Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. that the car in question was emitting foul smell during test drive, the case of the complainant about the defect in his car is duly proved. We find cogent and definite evidence of deficiency in service on the part of OPs because they failed to rectify the defect in the car despite a number of requests made by the complainant.

24.              For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. The OPs are directed :-

i)                 To replace the entire AC Unit of the car in question without charging anything from the complainant. ii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and mental agony. iii)               To make payment of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.

25.              The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

26.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.