Haryana

Sonipat

CC/189/2015

Amit Kumar S/o Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. M/s Libra Ford A Unit of Libra Care Pvt. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Bhardwaj

03 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

                                Complaint No.189 of 2015

                                Instituted on:05.06.2015

                                Date of order:03.03.2016

 

Amit Kumar son of Satbir Singh r/o village Kishora tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.  

Versus

 

1.M/s Libra Ford a unit of Libra Care private branch office at Kundli, distt. Sonepat thorugh its General manager/Prop. Mukesh Kumar Verma,

2.Libra Ford Workshop, Authorized service centre of Ford vehicles at Kundli, distt. Sonepat through its Manager Sukhminder Singh.

3.Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Regd. Office at Iffco Tower, 4^th, 5^th Floor, plot no.3, Sector 29, Gurgaon through its Director.

                                                      …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ravinder Bhardwaj Adv. for complainant.

           Respondents no.1 and 2 ex-parte.

           Sh.Vijay Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of car no.HR10W/5143. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.1.2015  and was damaged badly.  The car was taken to service centre of the respondents no.1 and 2 for repairs on 6.1.2015.  But the said car was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2015.  After the delivery of the said car, the complainant found that the problem/defects of the vehicle were not removed and the respondent no.2 has charged Rs.43845/- from the complainant wrongly.  When the said car was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2015 after minor repairs, the complainant found that right side tyre out, doors not properly fitted, doors hands were found loose, dent side of the vehicle is different.  The complainant has submitted that he has requested the respondents to redress his grievances, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.3 has only appeared in the present case, whereas respondents no.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte.

          The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that they have already paid the amount to the respondent no.1 and 2 against repair of the vehicle of the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the  complainant has submitted that the complainant’s car met with an accident on 4.1.2015  and was damaged badly.  The car was taken to service centre of the respondents no.1 and 2 for repairs on 6.1.2015.  But the said car was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2015.  After the delivery of the said car, the complainant found that the problem/defects of the vehicle were not removed and the respondent no.2 has charged Rs.43845/- from the complainant wrongly.  When the said car was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2015 after minor repairs, the complainant found that right side tyre out, doors not properly fitted, doors hands were found loose, dent side of the vehicle is different.  The complainant has submitted that he has requested the respondents to redress his grievances, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondent no.1 and 2 to come present before this Forum and to defend the present complaint. But instead of doing so, they have chosen to proceed themselves ex-parte, meaning thereby to some extent they have admitted the grievances of the complainant.  Accordingly, we have no other option except to issue some directions to the respondents no.1 and 2 by accepting the present complaint. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.1 to 2  to set right the right side tyre, set right the doors properly, set right the door hands and do the proper work of dent & paint and also to set right the measurement of the diggi as per the measurement of the new car. The respondents no.1 and 2 are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and 2 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3.

Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant

free of costs and the same be also sent to the respondents no.1 and 2 for information and its strict compliance

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:03.03.2016