J U D G E M E N T

                 Claiming himself as a consumer, under the C. P. Act, 1986, the complainant has sought for interference of this Forum in respect of fact complained of.

                 In epigrammatic, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant is the Owner of a vehicle being No. WB – 41 F/5579, which met an accident on 25.05.2013 and sustained damages and for repairing the said vehicle as to road running condition the Complainant brought the said damaged vehicle to the Opposite Party and after seeing the said damaged vehicle of the Complainant the Opposite Part charged a sum of Rs. 40,000/- only to Rs. 45,000/- only for entire repairing and asked the Complainant to pay the 50% of the total cost for which the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only to the Opposite Party on 23.06.2013 as the advance payment on issuing the ‘Money Receipt’ for repairing the said damaged vehicle. Thereafter on demand of the Opposite Party the Complainant further paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/- only to the Opposite Party on 04.07.2013 on issuing another ‘Money Receipt’ for buying the parts of the damaged vehicle. But the Opposite Party did not complete the repairing of the said damaged vehicle.  

                 The Complainant severally requested the Opposite Party to complete the said repairing works but the Opposite Party was reluctant to do the same and demanded further amount for buying the parts, but this time the Complainant did not pay any amount as she found that her damaged vehicle had been lying in same condition in same place and same position without any repairing. On asking about the repairing the Opposite Party assured the Complainant that the repairing works would be started very soon but of no result. On 11.07.2013 the when the Complainant further found the said damaged vehicle in same condition without any repairing she asked for refund of the said amount of Rs. 29,000/- only which she had already paid, but the Opposite Party refused to refund the same.

                Ultimately the Complainant sent a legal notice on 12.07.2013 to the Opposite Party to compromise the matter but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to it after duly receiving the said legal notice, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainants for which they had asked for compensation and the instant case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

                 Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case and the case is not maintainable.   

                The specific case as stated by the Opposite Party in gist, is that, the Complainant came to the Opposite Party and requested him to keep his vehicle in the Garage for few months taking rent from him. This Opposite Party firstly did not agreed with the proposal but on requests of the Complainant ultimately agreed with the proposal as the Complainant told that the lease of the said vehicle did not pay the lease premium to the Owner regularly for which the Owner was also not able to pay the monthly premium to the finance company and keeping the said vehicle in the garage the Owner could convince the finance company for not paying the monthly EMI and if the Opposite Party would issued the ‘Receipt’ showing much expenses for repairing of the said vehicle then the Complainant would easily get the insurance benefit and on repeated requests on part of the Complainant this Opposite Party unwillingly handed over his ‘letter headed’ paper after signing at the bottom of it.

                 The Opposite Party on believing the Complainant kept the said vehicle carefully in his garage but suddenly the Complainant with the help of police had taken the said vehicle without any reason though this Opposite Party was never unwilling to hand over the said vehicle to the Complainant. Thus, the Opposite Party has denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on his part towards the Complainant and the Complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief as prayed for from this Opposite party. Thus the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of this instant case.

                                            Points for Determination

                1.  Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?

               2.  Was there any negligence or deficiency in service

                                      on the part of the O.Ps ?

               3.  Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

                                                Decision with Reasons

                All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

                The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Opposite Party is liable to refund the said vehicle along with the sum of Rs. 29,000/- only to the Complainant or not.

                We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite party and also critically perused all the material documents on record and morefully scrutinized the entire case record.  

               On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite party, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident that the husband of the Complainant delivered a vehicle being

 No. WB – 41 F – 5579 to the Opposite Party and for the purpose of repairing the said vehicle the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only on 23.06.2013 and further had paid an amount of Rs. 9,000/- only on 23.06.2013 to the Opposite Party which the Opposite Party had received on issuing a ‘Money Receipt’ in favour of the Complainant wherein the both payments are duly endorsed, which is proved from the photocopy of the said ‘Money Receipt’ filed by the Complainant.

                 Manifestly it is also revealed from the said photocopy of the ‘Money Receipt’ filed by the Complainant that on next day the payment of the Complainant was written by the Opposite Party himself in his own hand writing though the Opposite Party had alleged in his Written Version that on request of the Complainant the Opposite Party had only put his signature at the bottom of his letter headed pad/paper. Thus the Opposite Party failed to prove his contention in this regard.

                 The record reveals that the Opposite Party stated and/or alleged that the Complainant kept his vehicle which was not in damaged condition but in good condition, for some malafide intention to avoid the payment of his monthly EMI. But the Opposite Party miserably failed to produce any document and/or any scrap of paper to show that the Complainant handed over the disputed vehicle in good condition.

                 Moreover the Opposite Party also did not produce any document to show that the Complainant kept her vehicle to the garage of the Opposite Party on payment of rent and also failed to produce any documents to show any ‘Receipt’ of such alleged rent.

                  Another point has noticed by the Forum is that the letter head pad/paper, wherein the Opposite Party had issued the ‘Money Receipt’ in favour of the Complainant, contains the details of the functions done by the Opposite Party. But nowhere in this letter headed pad/paper it is written that it is a garage where any vehicle is kept on payment of rent. On the other hand in that letter headed pad/paper it is written that : Body Builder & Repairers of New Truck and Bus.  So, it is not at all believable that the Opposite Party just kept the said vehicle, which totally in good condition, was only kept at the garage of the Opposite Party on payment of the rent.

                 Furthermore the Opposite Party specifically stated in the Paragraph No. 17 of his Written Version that the husband of the Complainant came with the police and had taken the said vehicle from the custody of the Opposite Party, but miserably has failed to produce any document or any scrap of paper to prove this contention. Thus the Opposite Party further did not prove his contention as alleged by him in his Written Version.

                 So, the fact remains that which is proved that the Complainant had handed over her damaged vehicle to the Opposite Party for repairing the same and also had paid a sum of Rs. 29,000/- only in total for purpose of the repairing to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not repair the said damaged vehicle. Moreover the Opposite Party neither ready and willing to refund the said vehicle nor has he agreed to refund the said amount to the Complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable to do.      

                 Thus, in view of the above findings the Forum unanimously is decided that in the present state of affairs the prayer of returning the vehicle in damage condition along with refund of the said amount of Rs. 29,000/- only should be provided by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant and the Opposite Party is still liable to do the same and also liable to pay the compensation for such harassment.

                Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved the case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for from the Opposite Party and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

               In short, the Complainant deserves success.

               In the result, we proceed to pass

                                                                                              O R D E R

                That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only payable by Opposite Party within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That the Opposite Party is directed to return the said disputed vehicle in damage condition to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That the Opposite Party is further be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 29,000/- only to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                 That the Opposite Party is further be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- only, to the Complainant, as compensation for harassment and mental agony within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

                In the event of non compliance of any portion of the executable order by the Opposite Party within the above specified period, the said Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- only per day from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which shall be deposited by the Opposite Party to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

                Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.