The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked an automobile firm to pay Rs 1,00,000 to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. The commission has asked Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd and Lekh Raj Pvt. Ltd Kaithal to pay the compensation. The complainant, Vansh Malhotra, a resident of Sector 37, had purchased a Chevrolet Sail Sedan on April 3, 2013, from Lekh Raj Pvt. Ltd. It was stated that from day one, warring yellow ignition light indication of the car was on, but the automobile company failed to fix the same, despite 40-50 visits by the complainant. However, the said problem was tracked after seven months, whereafter the same was fixed. Since there was a problem in the whole lot of the model of the car in question, the Kaithal firm replaced the main hub bolt and kit engine part of the car on September 6, 2013. Thereafter, due to problems in door panel, another automobile company replaced the weather stripping part and cable ASM mode of the doors on May 10, 2014. It was further stated that after few months, on account of ABS sensor and car turbo pickup, the complainant approached the automobile company but it took 4-5 months to fix that problem and ultimately, changed the whole wiring of the car. On March 8, 2015, the complainant had to leave his car with the automobile firm owing to major problem and was returned by it on March 12, 2015, after getting the problem fixed. When the complainant again faced similar problem, he got served a legal notice dated February 13, 2015. The automobile firm has stated that they discharged their liability by rectifying the defects without charging anything. They further averred that problems emanated either on account of running repairs or were general in nature and the same were carried out under warranty. The commission held: “The vehicle had problems frequently. Since the appellant was forced to take the newly purchased car to the respondents time and again and had to remain without car, as and when, the repairs were undertaken, it definitely caused him lot of physical harassment and mental agony. A person purchases a new car under the genuine hope and belief that for initial period of 2-3 years, there would not be any occasion for repairs but the same did not prove true. It meant that there were defects in the car necessitating repairs. It is not the case of the respondents/Opposite Parties that these problems occurred due to improper handling/usage of the car by the appellant Since the repairs have been carried out by the Opposite Parties without charging any amount, the vehicle being under warranty, coupled with the fact that the vehicle has covered 70,000-km during a period of less than three years, in our considered opinion, no case is made out for replacement of the car, in question.”
