BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 194 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 9.7.2015.
Date of Decision: 27.02.2019.
Laxman Singh son of Shri Puran Chand, resident of House No. 135, Ward No.16, Ram Narain Vihar, Charkhi Dadri.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Badhwar Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Sonepat Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Shailesh Automobiles, near Hunnamal Piau, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani through its Manager.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri J. S. Boora, Advocate for the complainant.
None for the OP No. 1.
Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 2.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing registration No.HR19F-7476 Spark L. S. Car and the complainant went to OP No. 2 for the service of the vehicle on 24.2.2015 and OP No. 2 assured to hand over the vehicle at 17.00 hrs. after service. It is further alleged that when complainant approached the OP No.2 for taking his vehicle, he found that the original key was missed. It is further alleged that the complainant had to hire another vehicle for Chandigarh & back to the tune of Rs.5000/-, because on next day a departmental exam was to be conducted by the appropriate authority, hence, the complainant was necessary to appear in the said exam. It is further alleged that in between from 25th February, 2015 to 1st March, 2015 no response/action was taken by the employees of service centre. It is further alleged that on 2nd March, 2015 the complainant visit OP No. 2 and requested for the delivery of the vehicle alongwith original key, but the employee of the OP No. 2 give a duplicate key by assuring that this was original key and the complainant had taken the vehicle. It is further alleged that on 13.3.2015 the vehicle started creating problem due to the duplicate key and the vehicle was again handed to OP No. 2 for removal of the starting problem as well as lighting problem and till 27.3.2015 the vehicle remained in service centre i.e. OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the OP No. 2 changed the starter of the vehicle and charged Rs.11,290/- vide bill No. 002030 dated 27.3.2015 and complainant paid the same under protest. It is further alleged that the same problems regarding starting and lighting are still in the vehicle due to wanted of the original key of the vehicle. It is further alleged that now wiring, lighting, starter and other functions of the vehicle can be burn out, which will cause a big financial loss to the complainant. It is further alleged that a legal notice was served upon the OPs through his counsel on dated 8.4.2015, but to no effect. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has to file the present complaint.
2. On notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement alleging therein that the OP No. 1 is not a party to this complaint. It is further alleged that complainant has not a single complaint against the OP No. 1, as the car was got serviced from OP No. 2 and the OP No. 1 has no business terms with OP No. 2. It is further alleged that the name of the OP No. 1 may please be removed from the present case.
3. On appearance, OP No.2 appeared and filed the contested written statement alleging therein that complainant has brought his car in the workshop of answering OP for routine checkup and service on 24.2.2015. It is further alleged that on that day, the key of the vehicle of the complainant was inadvertently misplaced in workshop of answering OP and the officials of the answering OP has handed over another original key of the car after getting the same set right in the lock of the car. It is further alleged that the car was handed over to the complainant after setting right the key in the working condition. It is further alleged that the complainant again visited the workshop of answering OP on 13.3.2015 with some starting problem and check light problem in the car. It is further alleged that the car was examined by the mechanic of the OP and it was found that starter of the vehicle was rusted and was not working due to rust. It is further alleged that the damaged part was shown to the complainant and he agreed that part is rusted and is not in working condition and the order of the part was sent to the company. It is further alleged that after receiving the part, same was changed and the vehicle was working properly. It is further alleged that the complainant made a request that total lock be changed and answering OP has agreed to change the same as a gesture of the showroom and the company. It is further alleged that the part was purchased from the company and the complainant was many times requested to come in the workshop, but he kept lingering on the matter, reason best known to him. It is further alleged that as per allegation that due to new key, starter of the car had damaged. It is further alleged that had the starter of the car damaged due to change of the key, the same would also be damaged after change of the starter from the same key. It is further alleged that more than one year has been elapsed the change of starter and there is no problem in the starting of the car till date. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C6 in evidence and closed the evidence.
5. The OP No. 1 has placed on record duly sworn affidavit and Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 has placed on record documents Annexure R1 to R6 & closed the evidence.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance. There are some facts which are admitted by both the parties. It is admitted that fact that original key has been lost by the employee of the OP No. 2. It is also admitted fact that the starter of the vehicle of the complainant has been burnt and replaced by the OP No. 2 with new one. It is also admitted fact that the OP No. 2 has charged Rs.11,290/- for the replacement of the starter from complainant. Now, the question arises “Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 or not? The sought answer is “yes”, because from the OP No. 2 has lost the original key of the vehicle of the complainant and the officials of the OP No. 2 issued duplicate key to the complainant, due to which the starter of the car of the complainant has been burnt. The only plea taken by the OP No. 2 is that the starter of the car not burnt due to duplicate key is not tenable at all, because no evidence has been placed on record by the OP No. 2 to prove that the starter of the car has not been burnt due to the duplicate key. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents i.e. Annexure C3 and Annexure C5 placed on the file, it is clear that the starter of the vehicle has been burnt due to duplicate key and it was bounden duty of the OP No. 2 to replace the starter of the car of the complainant free of costs. But the OP No. 2 has failed in doing so and he has charged Rs.11,290/- from the complainant for replacement of the starter. Moreover, from the pleadings of the complainant made in the complaint, no allegation or deficiency in service found on the part of the OP No. 1, hence, the complaint qua OP No. 1 is dismissed.
7. Hence, in view of the above facts & circumstances, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP No. 2 is directed to: -
i. To Pay Rs.11,290/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.
ii. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2.
iii. To pay Rs.5000/- as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OP No. 2 shall liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 27.02.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.02.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
