BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 409 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 15.06.2022.
Date of Decision : 18.10.2023.
Mewa Singh, aged 65 years son of Shri Bhagel Singh, resident of Lakkar Mandi, Noharia Bazar, Ward No.21, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Amit Auto Works, Opposite near Jat College, Jind, District Jind- 126 102, through its proprietor.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA …………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Dharampal Bhati, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. S.S. Gheek, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of an auto rickshaw Sitara bearing registration No. HR-57/9814 and running the same for earning his livelihood and he has no other source of income. That complainant wanted to get the said auto rickshaw modified and thereby making it suitable for taking students from their homes to school and then from school to their houses. On inquiry, the complainant came to know that opposite party (herein after referred as OP) is running a workshop at Jind and he undertakes such work of modification of automobile vehicles. It is further averred that complainant took his auto rickshaw at the workshop of op at Jind and op agreed to undertake the said work and gave categorically assurance to him that said modification will be done as per his desire and to his utmost satisfaction. That on such assurance and promises made by the op, the complainant entrusted his auto rickshaw to the op in the month of May, 2021 for modification i.e. to use heavy steel sheet, to apply yellow paint, to affix the flexible window, to affix two windows on the rear portion, to affix three fans, to affix the light, to affix two windows in front portion and also to affix signal. That op assured for doing these works and demanded a sum of Rs.,38,000/- from the complainant and complainant agreed for the same. The op asked him to come after 15 days for taking back his auto rickshaw. It is further averred that complainant visited the op after 15 days but he put off the matter by saying that it will take some more time and asked him to come after another 15 days. The complainant again visited the op after 15 days but again the op put off the matter and in this manner complainant took about 15 rounds at the workshop of op. That ultimately on 10.11.2021 the complainant alongwith Sonu son of Kikar Singh resident of Sirsa visited the op and then he delivered the said auto rickshaw to the complainant but the op had not done the modification work as desired by complainant. The op charged a sum of Rs.38,000/- from complainant and issued bill no. 216 dated 10.11.2021 and complainant had arranged this amount by borrowing the same from Balwinder Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Sirsa. It is further averred that as ordered and desired by complainant, the op had not done the modification work and made the changes in the same as per his own wish and will as op used and applied very light and inferior quality sheet instead of heavy steel sheet, applied black colour instead of yellow paint, applied curtain instead of flexible window, affixed daal instead of two windows on the rear portion and did not affix any fan, light and also applied curtains instead of two windows in front portion and also did not affix any signal.
2. It is further averred that complainant lodged a protest with the op in this regard but op did not listen to the same rather threatened him in the presence of Sonu that if complainant will raise such complaints, then he will keep the auto rickshaw with him and he can do what he likes and further threatened not come again at his shop. That above auto rickshaw was to be modified by the op within 15 days time but he took six months and during these six months neither he could run his auto rickshaw nor could earn any income from the same. The complainant was forced to part with his work of transporting the school children to other auto rickshaw driver nanely Prem Singh @ Bittu son of Sewa Singh and thus he has suffered a loss of income of Rs. four lacs during this period. That the op also did not return the steel sheet which was earlier affixed on the auto rickshaw, the weight of which was about 2.50 quintals and at the relevant time the price of scrap steel was Rs.34/- per kg and thus the scrap steel worth Rs.8500/- was kept by the op and complainant is entitled to recover this amount from op. It is further averred that complainant got inspected his auto rickshaw after the aforesaid modifications from Kuldeep Singh Mechanic who estimated the cost of modification as Rs.26,000/- and thus op charged a sum of Rs.12,000/- in excess from complainant. That in this manner the op by his such act and conduct indulged himself in unfair trade practice and has committed gross deficiency in service and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- charged in excess from complainant, to pay Rs.8500/- as price of scrap steel, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing loss of income to him and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, concealment of material facts, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party and jurisdiction etc. On merits, while denying the contents of complaint being wrong it is submitted that op is not doing the said modification work, hence, there is no question of doing the said work of the auto rickshaw of the complainant by the answering op. That there is no firm under the name and style of Amit Auto Works in the name of answering op. It is further averred that op never made any modification in the auto rickshaw of complainant as alleged and never demanded alleged amount of Rs.38,000/- and totally false story has been concocted by the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the op under the greed and in order to grab the money from answering op. It is further submitted that op never charged the alleged amount of Rs.38,000/- from the complainant and has not issued any alleged bill no. 216 dated 10.11.2021 and there are no writing or signature of answering op on the alleged bill. All other remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents i.e. registration certificate Ex.C2, cash/ credit memo Ex.C3, report of Mechanic Kuldeep Singh Ex.C4.
5. On the other hand, op has tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A.
6. During the course of arguments, complainant has also placed on file original cash/ credit memo dated 10.11.2021 and document regarding identification of mobile number of op by true-caller.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. The opposite party has denied each and every allegations of complainant and has asserted that he is not doing the said modification work and as such no question of doing the said work of modification of auto rickshaw of complainant arise at all and that there is no firm under the name and style of Amit Auto Works in the name of op. Further the op has also categorically denied that the fact that he never charged the alleged amount of Rs.38,000/- from complainant and has not issued any alleged bill no. 216 dated 10.11.2021 but however op has failed to prove his assertions through any cogent and convincing evidence and has simply placed on file his own affidavit which is not sufficient to prove his above said defence plea and bald assertions taken in the written statement. On the other hand, complainant has placed on file copy of cash/ credit memo of the op’s firm named as Amit Auto Works, Jind (Ex.C3) and has also placed on file original cash/ credit memo of the op and these documents also bear the signature of Suresh Kumar op. There is nothing on file to suggest and prove that said cash/ credit memo does not pertain to the op and same does not bear his signatures. So, it is proved on record that op has charged an amount of Rs.38,000/- from the complainant for the above said modification work of his auto rickshaw. The complainant has alleged that despite charging of the above said amount of Rs.38,000/- from him the op had not done the modification in the auto rickshaw as per his desire and had used inferior quality of items in the modification work and has claimed that op has charged extra amount of Rs.12,000/- from him for doing the said work. In this regard, complainant has also placed on file report of Kuldeep Singh Mechanic of Shri Vishavkarma Body Repairing Works, Sirsa as Ex.C4 in which it is reported that the work of modification done by op including labour work is Rs.26,000/- The complainant has also placed on file document regarding identification of mobile number of op by true-caller. The version of op that he is not doing the work of modification, he has not charged any amount from complainant and has not issued any bill is not proved and believable rather from the cash credit memo of op as well as his mobile number available with complainant it is proved on record that op is also doing modification work at Jind and as such complainant approached to him for doing modification work of his auto rickshaw at Jind and as such complainant is having his mobile number. It is proved on record by complainant that op has charged excess amount of Rs.12,000/- from complainant for doing the above said work of modification and has also retained the scrap of the steel worth Rs.8500/- and as such complainant is entitled to refund of the above said amount of Rs.12,000/- plus Rs.8500/- (total Rs.20,500/-) from op besides compensation for harassment. Though complainant has averred that as op has retained the auto rickshaw with him for six months for doing the above said work of modification and as such he has suffered loss of income of Rs.four lacs, but he has not placed on file any proof in this regard and as such we are of the considered view that complainant is also entitled to lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation from op including litigation expenses.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.20,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 15.06.2022 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 18.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
