SCRIPT FOR ROLE-PLAY (Consumer Protection Act 2019)

Complainant consumer: xxxxx

Vs

Defendant: Progressive Auto Pvt Ltd, Udupi

Case-summary (Case No.189/2021 before CDRF Udupi

The complainant consumer (CC) faces problems of engine overheating with the newly purchased
Tata Nexon car registered as Tourist taxi. Repeated visits to the dealer M/s Progressive Auto Pvt.
Ltd, Udupi (Defendant) during warranty period and later, have not helped in getting a permanent
fix to the problem. He approaches an advocate (Petitioner’s counsel PC) who first sends a
Registered notice to the defendant and their inaction results in filing of case before the Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum (CDRF-Udupi) claiming Rs.840000. The defendant’s representative, the
Works Manager (WM) appoints advocate (Defendant’s counsel DC) to defend them. The court is
presided by the President of CDRF (Judge J) & assisted by Sheristadar (SH). The Dist. Forum
passes orders against defendants for Rs.300000, but the complainant is unhappy with the
judgment, and he goes on appeal before State CDRF.

ROLE-PLAY

Narrator (briefing): The case pertains to a consumer who buys a faulty product (a Tata Nexon
Motor car) from dealers, M/s Progressive Auto, Udupi. Repeated visits to the garage for service
did not yield the desired result and hence he is compelled to take legal action. The roles of
participating students are…………

SCENE-1 at Advocate xxxx’s Office in Udupi

Complainant consumer (CC) approaches an advocate xxxx (Petitioner’s counsel -PC)

Complainant consumer: Sir, I have come to brief you about the hardships faced due to frequent
breakdowns of my brand new Tata Nexon car and the imperfect service carried out by the local dealer,
M/s Progressive Auto Pvt. Ltd, Udupi.(Narrates full story of taking the vehicle thrice for resolving the issue
of engine overheating).

PC: Alright, we shall first send a legal notice to the dealers & see if they can find a remedy. If they do not
sort out the issue within 15 days of receipt of legal notice, we shall move the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (CDRF), Udupi.

CC: Thank you sir. (Thereafter leaves office)

PC sends a legal notice to dealers next day, requesting replacement of defective car.

Scene-2

(The Works Manager WM of Progressive Auto receives legal notice and thereafter calls on the
Company’s legal advisor or Defendant’s counsel (DC)

WM: Look, I have received a legal notice from a customer complaining about a defective car we sold.
Though we have done everything to set it right, he has threatened to proceed legally if we don’t replace
his car.
DC: Please hand over the legal notice to me. I shall send them a reply after you share its service history.
In case the consumer proceeds further, you may please bring the court summons/petition to me, and you
may represent your firm.

WM: Thank you sir. (Thereafter leaves office).

DC replies to legal notice the same day, stating that his client has not been deficient in providing
service to the consumer.

Scene-3 (1st Oct 2021)

(PC approaches CDRF Udupi to file complaint under Consumer Protection Act 2019)

PC: Please register my case in this forum.

Sheristadar (SH): Fine. Please remit the court fee along with your written copy of complaint in the
appropriate format. If the claimed amount exceeds Rs. 1 crore, you need to approach the State forum.

PC: We are claiming Rs.8 lacs for replacement of car, Rs.25000 towards loss of earnings and Rs.15000
towards hardship, suffering etc. totaling Rs.8,40,000.

(SH registers case, allots case No.189, accepts court fee of Rs.400 and fixes date of hearing as 1 st
Nov.2021.Thereafter sends summons along with complaint copy to both complainant and
defendant within 21 days).

Scene-4-------1st hearing-1st Nov. 2021 at CDRF, Udupi

(Present-Judge, Sheristadar, complainant’s & defendant’s counsels)

SH: Case No.189 of 2021 before CDRF Udupi- CC Rakesh versus Progressive Auto (Delivers case
papers to judge)

J: Are the parties present?

PC: Yes, your honor, I am appearing for complainant.

DC: Yes, your honor, I am appearing for defendant.

J: (After going through case papers). I am dismissing the case. The learned counsels should be aware
that buyers of goods for commercial purpose/resale etc.do not come within the definition of a consumer
under consumer protection Act 2019.Likewise, customers who have received goods/services free also
cannot approach this forum. Hence your remedy lies in civil courts only.

PC: Your honor, please do not dismiss the case. My client’s sole source of earning is this taxicab and his
livelihood depends on it. Hence, he would still fall within the definition of a consumer.

J: If this car is your client’s only source of livelihood, your case can be admitted, provided you file an
affidavit with both yours & client’s declaration to that effect. Both counsels also need to file Vakalat forms.
Defendant is allowed 30 days max to file defense. Case to be posted accordingly.

SH: Case posted to 1st Dec.2021

Scene-5: 2nd hearing-1st Dec 2021 at CDRF, Udupi (Only counsels are present)
SH: Case No.189 of 2021 before CDRF Udupi- CC Rakesh versus Progressive Auto. (Delivers case
papers to Judge)

J: Have both counsels filed vakalat forms? Besides, have defendants also filed defense statement in
addition? Likewise, has the complainant filed affidavit to prove that the taxi was sole source of earning?

DC: Yes, your honor.

PC: Yes, your honor.

J: Case can be posted for evidence. Counsels to file affidavits for examination of witnesses. Notice to be
sent to all parties including witnesses accordingly.

SH: Case posted to 15th Dec 2021 for evidence.

(SH sends notices to petitioner, respondents, and their counsels regarding posting of case for
evidence).

Scene-6---------- Taking of evidence (15 Dec 2021)

SH: Case No.189 of 2021 before CDRF Udupi- CC versus Progressive Auto. (Delivers case papers to
Judge)

J: PC can go for chief examination of complainant. (Complainant proceeds to witness box & takes oath)

PC Carries out chief examination.

When did you bought the vehicle?

Since when you are facing the issue?

How many times your engine has been repaired?

Did you not use the gear as mentioned in the SOPs?

J: DC may now cross-examine the complainant.

DC cross examines complainant. - Number of times his client (the Defendant) has promptly attended to
the defects of the car and delivered it back in satisfactory condition?

The repairers have done a good job in servicing the vehicle and that some engine heating is normal
when the vehicle is driven along cluttered roads at slow speeds?

Thereafter concludes by saying that’s all your honor.

J: (Notes down details of examination). Who has come from Defendant’s side?

DC: Your honor, it is the Company’s Work’s Manager.

J: The DC may have chief examination of the defendant Works Manager. (Defendant proceeds to witness
box and takes oath).
Defendant’s counsel examines the Works Manager- Do You agree that engine heating is normal if the car
is driven harshly or the driving instructions are not followed as per the manual?

Do you attended all the repairs & returned the vehicle in a satisfactory manner whenever the issue is
reporter by the customer?

J: PC may now cross-examine the defendant.

PC Carries out cross examination.

How many users have registered similar complaints?

How many times did Mr. Ashish visited for the repair?

Is this issue known to the company or not?

Do you thing a newly bought vehicle should have these kind of issues?

What are you planning to do if Mr. Ashish comes to you with the same problem again?

J: (Notes down details of examination). In view of parties taking contrasting positions regarding engine
performance of the car, I am passing interim orders that the complainant’s car be examined by an
external expert, a senior engineer from Automobile Association of India (AAI), Mangalore. Cost of
examination, Rs.5000 to be borne by complainant. Notice to be sent to the engineer of AAI so that report
is made available in 45 days. Case can be posted to 1st Feb 2022.

SH: PC, kindly remit Rs.5000 in two days so that I can proceed further & serve notice to Automobile
expert based out of Mangalore.

SH receives fee of Rs.5000 from PC & thereafter serves notice to Engineer of AAI.

Automobile Engineer of AAI, Mangalore receives court notice, examines the car, and sends report
to the Consumer Forum.

Scene-7 at CDRF, Udupi (1st Feb.2022)

SH: Case No.189 of 2021 before CDRF Udupi- CC versus Progressive Auto

J: Has the Automobile expert’s Report been filed?

SH: Yes, your honor. (Delivers case papers to Judge).

J: The Automobile expert’s report states that the complainant’s car has a defective engine, though the
rest of the vehicle is perfect mechanically. Hence, I pass orders jointly against Progressive Auto and the
manufacturer Tata Motors that:

1) Defendant must fit a new engine in the car by procuring a new one from manufacturer at a cost of
Rs.275000 and arrange for endorsement in Registration certificate by RTO.
2) Rs.10000 is awarded towards loss of earnings.
3) Rs.7000 is allowed towards costs
4) Rs.8000 is allowed towards hardship/suffering etc.
The defendant shall deposit a cheque for Rs.300000 plus interest@ 6% from 1 st Oct.2021 before this
forum within 30 days of this order. Case can be posted to 2 nd March 2022.

Scene-8 at CDRF, Udupi (2nd March 2022)

SH: Case No.189 of 2021 before CDRF Udupi- CC versus Progressive Auto. (Delivers case papers to
Judge)

J: Have defendants complied with our order?

SH: Yes, your honor. They have remitted Rs.3, 06, 000 including interest by cheque, but complainant is
proceeding to appeal before State forum, and he has applied for certified copy for this purpose.

J: Alright, let the cheque be deposited in our account till disposal of appeal case by State forum and you
may also give them a certified copy of order.

Scene-9 (16th March 2022) Place: CDRF Karnataka State consumer disputes Forum, Bangalore

PC-2 files appeal before State forum by paying fee & enclosing a copy of District forum’s order.

SH2: Case No. 55 of 2022 before State CDRF, Bangalore. Delivers case papers to judge.

PC-2: Your honor, we are appealing against District forum’s orders in case No.189/2021 before CDRF,
Udupi. Though we have applied for compensation to the tune of Rs.8, 40, 000 we were awarded only
Rs.3, 00, 000.

J2: I find no merit in allowing full replacement of the car, but I am enhancing the amount awarded towards
loss of earnings to Rs.20000 and compensation for hardship to Rs.12000. Order passed for enhancing
compensation to 3, 14, 000 plus interest payable within 30 days of this order.