Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum to allow the complaint case, this Appeal is moved by M/s Kaikan Ford Service Centre u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that after the Complainant’s car fell into a pond, it was taken to the authorized service centre for due repairing.  The Complainant spent a sum of Rs. 1,90,581/- for repairing the said car.  Despite this, the engine of the car developed problem again for which the car was sent to the service centre of the OP.  It is alleged that even after passage of two weeks since delivery of the car to the service centre of the OP No. 1, it did not start repairing of the car for want of fresh work order from the Complainant.  Complaint lodged with the OP No. 1 did not yield any positive response; hence, the complaint.

OP No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the Insurance Company categorically asked it to repair the engine instead of replacing the same though the necessity of replacement of the engine was duly explained to the Insurance Company. 

The OP No. 3 submitted that it is an admitted position that the OP No. 1 did not repair the engine properly; yet, it charged excessive amount.  According to the value assessed by the Surveyor, this OP settled the claim by paying a sum of Rs. 78,000/-.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service on its part. 

Decision with reasons

Parties were heard in the matter and documents on record carefully gone through.

On a reference to the WV and the Memo of Appeal, we find that the Appellant has come up with contradictory versions.  In its WV, the Appellant alleged that the Insurer instructed it to repair the engine and not to replace the same.  On the other hand, in the Memo of Appeal, it primarily passed the buck upon the Respondent No. 1/Complainant for non-replacement of the engine and insisting on repairing of the same. 

Significantly, the Appellant has not adduced any material proof in support of its contention. Further, it is not understood, if it was so certain about the futility of repairing of the engine, why it embarked on such expensive exercise at all.   

The Ld. District Forum rightly allowed the complaint case and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 with a cost of Rs. 20,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.