Haryana

Gurgaon

cc/176/2009

Chaman Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arun Bose - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2016

ORDER

                                                        DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001

                                                                                                                    Consumer Complaint No: 176 of 2009                                                                                                                                Date of Institution: 02.03.2009                                                                                                                                                           Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

Chaman Parkash s/o Sh. Hari Ram, R/o Dharuhera, Sub Tehsil Dharuhera District Rewari.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

Arun Bose, General Manager, Superon Hyundai (A unit of Safdarjung Motors Pvt. Ltd), 134, Sector 37 Pace City-1, Gurgaon.

 

V.K.Sabarwal, Vice-President, Superon Hyundai ( A unit of Safdarjung Motors Pvt. Ltd), 134, Sector 37 Pace City-1, Gurgaon, sitting at Safdarjung Motors Pvt. Ltd (Safdarjung Hyundai) 225 Udyog Vihar, Phase 4, Shyam Chowk, NH-8, Gurgaon.

 

Superon Hyundai ( A unit of Safdarjung Motors Pvt. Ltd) through Sarad Mehra, Managing Director (Safdarjung Hyundai ) 225 Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Shyam Chowk, NH-8, Gurgaon.

 

..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri  Nigesh Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

                    Shri R.K.Passey, Adv for the OPs.

                   

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased car model Sonata Ambro bearing Regd. No.HR-26-AL-0021 from OP-1on 15.08.2007. The above said car met with an accident in the last week of Dec, 2008 and the same was taken to OP-1 for repair. OP-1 raised a bill of Rs.1,33,516/-dated 16.01.2009 and the OP-1 had released the said vehicle on 30.01.2009 after taking a sum of Rs.40,392/- and the balance amount of Rs.83,124/- was paid by the insurance company ICICI Lombard. On 30.01.2009 when the complainant was going to his house after taking the delivery from the showroom of OP-1 then he noticed that the temperature of the said vehicle had increased and the complainant reported the matter to OP-1 who gave helpline No.9971555109. Thereafter the complainant contacted on the helpline then two persons came to the spot and they asked the complainant to run the car for appro. 200/300 km and the defect would be removed automatically. On 31.01.2009 when the complainant was going to Jaipur the said car again developed the same problem near Bawal and complainant gave telephone number to OP-1 and OP-1 sent   Mr. Ajay Dahiya who reported that temperature was high and AC was not working. The complainant contacted OP-1 time and again but the said defect could not be removed and ultimately complainant took the said car to OP-1 and it was revealed to the complainant that gasket of the said car was damaged and OP-1 gave estimate of Rs.50,000/- for repair of said damage. The complainant left the car with OP-1 and the said car was allegedly still lying there.

2                 During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after paying Rs.50,000/- in view of the order of this Forum dated 23.06.2009 and the rights of the parties shall be decided qua the said amount at the time of final adjudication of the matter.

3                 OPs in their written reply have alleged that  on 02.02.2009 complainant brought his aforesaid car  to OP-1 for carrying out repair and service particularly engine overheating and replacement of head gasket etc and the employees/officers informed the complainant the estimated cost of Rs.50,000/- for carrying out such repair and the complainant agreed to pay the same and signed repair order. At the time of handing over aforesaid car or signing work order complainant did not raise any kind of objection or grievance whatsoever regarding the same. M/s Safdarjang Motor (P) Ltd carried out repair and service of aforesaid car with the entire satisfaction of the complainant and on 17.02.2009 he was informed about the cost of repairing but complainant avoided to take delivery . OP raised bill No.200904161 for Rs.54,244/- for carrying out repair of complainant’s aforesaid car but instead of paying the above said amount the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum. On 05.05.2009 the complainant was liable to pay the aforesaid bill amount of Rs.54,244/-  plus Rs.19,250/- by way of parking charges @ Rs.250/- per day since 18.02.2009 to 05.05.2009. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file.

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant has purchased vehicle No.HR-26-AL-0021 from OP-1 on 15.08.2007. However, the said car met with an accident in the last month of Dec, 2009 and the complainant took the said car for repair to OP-1. However, OP-1 raised a bill of Rs.1,33,516/-  dated 16.01.2009 and OP-1 released the said vehicle on 30.01.2009 after taking a sum of Rs.40,392/- and the balance amount of Rs.83,124/- was paid by the insurance company ICICI Lombard. The complainant after taking the vehicle on 30.01.2009 was going to his residence then he noticed that temperature of said car had increased and the complainant reported the matter to OP-1 who gave helpline No.9971555109 and thereafter the complainant contacted on the helpline then two persons came to the spot and they asked the complainant to run the car for approximately 200/300 km and the defect would be automatically developed. On 31.01.2009 when the complainant was going to Jaipur the said car again developed the problem near Bawal and the complainant gave telephone number to OP-1 and reported the problem that the temperature was high and AC was not working. The complainant contacted OP-1 time and again but the said defect could not be removed and ultimately the complainant took the aid car to OP-1 and it was revealed to the complainant that gasket of the said car was damaged and the OP-1 gave estimate of Rs.50,000/- for repair of said car. The complainant left the car with OP-1 and the same was allegedly lying there. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs Sukumar Mukherjee and others (Dr.) 2009(3) CPC 388, V.Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Another 2010(2) CPC, Deepak K Raman Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd & Ors III(2010) CPJ 381 (NC), Premanchal Motors Pvt. Ltd Vs Ramdass & Ors II(2009) CPJ 98 (NC), Brigadier Baljit Singh Gill Vs Head Customer Support ICICI Lombard and Anr 2010(2) CPC 592 and M/s Shankar Automobile through its proprietor Vs Deepak Kumar Singh 2008(3) CPC, 589.

6                 However, as per the contention of the OPs, the vehicle has been sold to Inderpal who brought the vehicle and took the delivery of the car after payment of repair charges and as such the complainant has ceased to be owner of said vehicle and as such the complainant is not a consumer and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has relied upon M/s Honda Cars India Ltd Vs Jatinder Singh Madan, in RP No.2622 of 2012 decided on 11.10.2013 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  Learned counsel for the OPs has also contended that the complaint was liable to pay Rs.54,244/-in view of repair charges and a sum of Rs.19,250/- on account of parking charges. The OP has contended that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been paid in view of order passed by this Forum at the time of delivery of said car but a sum of Rs.4244/- is still pending  and parking charges of Rs.31,250/- was liable to be paid by the complainant. The OP has denied any negligence on its part and has denied its liability of Rs.50,000/- which was paid at the time of  delivery of said car.

7                 The contention of the OP that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to one Inderpal  who brought the vehicle and took the delivery of the car after payment of repair charges is not sustainable in the eye of law because the OP has failed to lead any cogent evidence which could prove that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to one Mr. Inderpal

8                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerge that the complainant took the vehicle to OP-1 for repair after accident and delivery of the said vehicle was taken on 30.01.2009 after payment of Rs.40,392/-. However, the said vehicle developed problem on the same i.e. on 30.01.2009 and the complainant contacted OP-1. The mechanic of the OP-1 assured the complainant that the vehicle would run automatically.  The said vehicle again developed the problem on 31.01.2009 and was taken to OP-1 where repair order dated 02.02.2009 was prepared in which the complaint of engine overheating and replacement of head gasket was mentioned. It is pertinent to mention here that the dispute pertains to the repair amount of Rs.54244/- which was prepared by OP-1 qua job card dated 02.02.2009. The complainant did not take the delivery of said vehicle. However, the delivery of the said vehicle was taken on payment of Rs.50,000/- in view of the order of this Forum dated 23.06.2009 against the bill of Rs.54,244/- subject to  adjudication of the liability in the present complaint.

9                 After going through the evidence on record and the bills placed on file it emerges that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.17569/- regarding junction box assembly-engine room and the said car after repair was taken by the complainant on 30.01.2009 and the said car developed problem when the complainant was on way to his house and reported the matter that the car had developed heating problem. The heating problem continued and when the complainant was on way to Jaipur on 31.01.2009 then said car developed heating problem and ultimately the said car broke down and complainant reported the matter to OP-1 and thereafter the said car was brought to OP-1 for further repair of engine overheating and replacement of head gasket as mentioned in the repair order dated 02.02.2009. Therefore, engine over heating problem is on account of non repairing of the said vehicle properly and due to overheating of the engine head gasket was damaged. From the bill dated 16.01.2009 it emerges that the OP-1 has replaced the junction box assembly and now Head Assy-Cylinder has been replaced for a sum of Rs.43,682.87 as shown in the bill dated 23.04.2009 (Ex.OP-1/7). In our opinion charging of Rs.43,682.87/- on account of repair of the Head Assembly of the engine tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and thus, we hold that the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs.43,682/- to the complainant.

10                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is evident that complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the order of this Forum against the total bill of Rs.54,244/- and even the balance of Rs.4244/- was pending. After making calculation and deduction, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.39,438/- (Rs.54,244/-minus Rs.43,682/- =10562/-)(Rs.50,000/- already paid minus Rs.10562/- =Rs.39438/-) with interest  @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.03.2009 till realization from OP-1. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The OP-1 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                          (Subhash Goyal)

17.05.2016                                                                                                             President,

                                                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member