Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 335
Instituted on : 15.07.2019.
Decided on : 12.04.2024.
Jogender Pal age 40 years, s/o Shri Devi Sahai, resident of village LakhanMajra, Tehsil Meham District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Assem Autos Pvt. Ltd.,(Authorized dealer of Renault) Regd. Off: 118/7, K.M.Stone, G.T.Road, Karnal-132001 through its Managing Director.
- Aseem Auto Pvt. Ltd. Branch at Delhi Bye Pass Road, Opp. 2nd Entrance, Sector-1, Rohtak through its Manager.
…….Respondents/Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.K.Sapra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is possessing vehicle LMV Car KWID RXT bearing Registration No.HR-12AB-5337 on the basis of Special Power of Attorney executed by the owner of the said car namely Mr.Ravi son of Shri Maha Singh, on 20.1.2017. The aforesaid car met with accident and was badly damaged on 21.8.2017 anda report was got lodged with the police at Police Station LakhanMajra (Rohtak).The aforesaid car was brought to the opposite parties workshop on 24.08.2017 being the authorized dealer of Renault for repair and by that time it was assured by the opposite parties that the said car after repair shall be returned to the complainant within a period of one month. But opposite parties failed to fulfilltheir promise and did not repair the said car within the period of one month despite his repeated requests.The complainant had to manage another car on rent to meet out his need as he was having no other vehicle.The vehicle was repaired and handed over to the complainant on 22.01.2018 after a period of more than five months. During that period the complainant suffered a lot and he had to incur Rs.50,000/- approximately per month on account of rent of the another car hired by the him.After getting the delivery of the above-said car, it has been noticed that the said car has not been repaired properly and there are so many shortcomings/defects in the said car, as such, the opposite parties have failed to even repair the car in a proper manner as assured by them. The complainant has duly intimated about the same to the opposite parties in writing on 19.12.2017 and on 08.01.2018. Besides it some essential accessories were not installed in the car which was badly damaged in the accident whereas those accessories were already there. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-on account of harassment, mental pain and agony, deficiency in service and financial losses suffered by the complainant due to late delivery of his car and also to repair the vehicle afresh in a proper and effective manner and to install the accessory as had been requested by the complainant in his request letters and to pay Rs.35000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their written reply and has admitted that the said car was brought at the workshop of opposite party no.2 on 24.8.2017 in accidental condition for repair but it is wrong and denied that it was assured by the opposite parties that the said car after repair shall be returned to the complainant within a period of one month. Infact, no assurance regarding time period of repair was given by the opposite parties. It is submitted that the car was badly damaged and it has taken time in repair of car because some parts which were not available at workshop of the opposite parties at Rohtak were brought from outside and it was told to the complainant that it will take some time. No delay was caused by the opposite parties in repair of the car. The opposite parties have no concern with managing another car by the complainant on rent. The mechanics of the opposite parties have made their best efforts to repair the car within short possible period. The car was fully repaired on 30.11.2017 and invoice was issued in this regard and on the basis of said invoice, the official of insurance company inspected the car and accordingly, the claim was passed on the basis of invoice dated 30.11.2017. After repair of car on 30.11.2017, the opposite parties informed the complainant to take delivery of car but he came to receive the car on 22.01.2018.The oppositeparties have not caused any delay in repair of the car. The complainant came to receive the car only on 22.01.2018. It is wrong and denied that the said car has not been repaired properly or that there are so many shortcomings/defects in the said car. It is submitted that the car was received by the complainant on 22.01.2018 in fully repaired condition and he was satisfied with the same. He has plied the said car for a period of about 1½ years after taking the delivery and now he has filed the present complaint on false grounds. There may be any fault in the said car while plying the car and the opposite parties are not responsible for the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.No financial loss has been caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence on 11.03.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit, tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on 29.03.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the complainant has pleaded that the vehicle was repaired by the opposite parties after a period of more than five months dueto which he suffered a financial loss. It is further contended that after getting the delivery of the above-said car, it has been noticed by the complainant that the said car has not repaired properly and there are so many shortcomings/defects in the said car, as such, the opposite parties have failed to even repair the car in a proper manner as assured by them. The complainant has duly intimated about the same to the opposite parties in writing on 19.12.2017 and on 08.01.2018 but the defects were not removed. On the other hand, respondent has submitted that the car was fully repaired on 30.11.2017 and invoice was issued in this regard and on the basis of said invoice, the official of insurance company inspected the car and accordingly, the claim was passed on the basis of invoice dated 30.11.2017. After repair of car on 30.11.2017, the opposite parties informed the complainant to take delivery of car but he came to receive the car on 22.01.2018.The oppositeparties have not caused any delay in repair of the car. The complainant came to receive the car only on 22.01.2018.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. We have perused the document Ex.C3 repair order, as per which the estimated cost of the repair was Rs.90000/- and promise date &time of return written as 24.09.2017. We have also perused the invoice Ex.R1, as per this invoice the repair cost comes to Rs.150732/-. Meaning thereby initially the estimate was prepared by the surveyor after considering the damages as Rs.90000/- but at the time of repair of the vehicle, some hidden damages were also found by the respondent so the actual cost of repair was enhanced from 90000/- to Rs.150732/-. Moreover it has been pleaded by the respondent that re-inspection was conducted by the insurance company and after that the claim was passed on the basis of invoice dated 30.11.2017. So the vehicle was repaired well within time. No doubt the perusal of the application placed on record by the complainant shows that there were some minor defects in the vehicle so he was not taking the vehicle. But the same were removed by the opposite parties and thereafter complainant received the car on 22.01.2018. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.04.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
