Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/66

Prem Pal Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bencmark Motors Private Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Garg

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                       66 of 2018

Date of Institution:          16.04.2018

Date of Decision :            30.04.2019

 

Prem Pal Bansal and sons through its Karta Dr Prem Pal Bansal aged about 65 years c/o Bansal Nursing Home, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, now resident of Old Cantt Road, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Benchmark Motors Private Limited, 8^th Mile Stone, Goneana Road, Bathinda (Punjab) 151001, through its Manager/Owner/Authorized Signatory.
2. Renault India Pvt Ltd, RSV Romana Tower 37-38, 4^th Floor, Venkatanarayana Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600017.
3. Raj Kumar son of Shree Ram Krishan, resident of Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                    Sh Jaskirat Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                    Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OP-2,                   

                    OP-3 Exparte.

cc no. 66 of 2018

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to refund the excess amount charged  from complainant and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of car Renault KWID bearing no.PB-04Y-5705 and he sent his car to OP-1 for regular check up and for second service within warranty period on 6.02.2018. OP-1 serviced his car and charged Rs.1,806/-from complainant including Rs.708/-plus Tax for labour charges vide envoice dated 6.02.2018. It was free service and in free service there are no labour charges. complainant protested against charging this amount but OP-1 insisted and threatened that OP-1 would not allow the vehicle to leave the premises until complainant pays the same. Complainant was forced to pay the amount and action of OPs in charging this amount in excess from complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant immediately sent e-mail regarding this to Ops, but all in vain. Even Legal notice dated 14.02.2018 issued by complainant through his counsel also served no purpose. Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do the needful. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

 

cc no. 66 of 2018

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.04.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                       OP-1 filed reply wherein admitted that complainant approached them through his driver for second free service of his vehicle on 6.02.2018. Driver of complainant was advised to get alignment of vehicle, wheel balancing and engine coating for betterment of his vehicle and Rs.2500/-were quoted for said service. Said driver of complainant sought instructions of complainant and on instructions of complainant, he gave written consent by signing pre-job ship report in which it was clearly mentioned that engine coating would cost Rs.708/- and in that document, engine oil, air filter, oil filter were also mentioned and amount of Rs.1806/-was charged which contained Rs.708/-for engine coating. It is averred that complainant was charged only for consumable items which are not covered in free services like engine oil, air filter, oil filter and engine coating and that also on getting permission from complainant by driver of complainant. it is denied that they ever threatened or forced driver of complainant and it is also denied that they ever received e-mail from complainant, rather they sent e-mail dated 17.02.2018 to complainant in which it was specified that all job work was done on vehicle with approval of representative of complainant and OP-1 would give discount to complainant on his next visit, if he is not satisfied with their services. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and complainant has filed the present complaint only to cause harassment to them. All the other allegations are also refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

cc no. 66 of 2018

5                                              Op-2 filed reply wherein denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that present complaint is filed on mere conjectures and surmises and all the allegations levelled by complainant are false and frivolous and complaint is vexatious. However, it is admitted that complainant purchase the car in question from them and OP-1 their authorized dealer but OP-1 is running its service centre independently and they have no role to play in grievance of complainant. Moreover, there is no defect in car of complainant and he has not alleged any defect in product and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                        Notice issued to OP-3 was  duly served but despite having sufficient knowledge about complaint filed against them, OP-3 did not appear in the Forum on date fixed. Therefore, vide order dated 29.05.2018, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Neeraj Bansal Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1 /2 to Ex OP-1/8 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Abha Tiwari Ex OP-2/1 and documents Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/3and also closed the same.

                                               

cc no. 66 of 2018

9                                                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that he owns a car purchased from OP-1 and he sent his car to OP-1 for regular check up and for second service on 6.02.2018 as it was in warranty period. OP-1 serviced his car and charged Rs.1,806/- including Rs.708/-plus Tax for labour charges. As it was free service and in free service there are no labour charges, but complainant was forced to pay the amount and action of OPs in charging this amount in excess from complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Even e-mail and legal notice issued to Ops served no purpose. Repeated requests made to Ops to refund the amount charged from him, bore no fruit and OPs did not redress the grievance of complainant. In reply, OP-1 admitted that complainant was entitled for second free service and he sent his car to them through his driver and said driver of complainant gave due consent by signing pre-job ship report in which it was specified that engine coating would cost Rs.708/- and in that document, engine oil, air filter, oil filter were also mentioned and amount of Rs.1806/-was charged which contained Rs.708/-for engine coating. Complainant was charged only for consumable items which are not covered in free services like engine oil, air filter, oil filter and engine coating and that also with permission of complainant through his driver. They never threatened or forced driver of complainant to pay the said charges. Receipt of e-mail from complainant is also denied and it is averred that they sent e-mail dated 17.02.2018 to complainant specifying that all job work was done on vehicle with approval of representative of complainant and OP-1 would give discount to complainant on his next visit, if he is not satisfied with their services. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.  OP-2 have

cc no. 66 of 2018

also denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted they have no role to play in the free service of car of complainant and being manufacturer of car in question, they are liable for defect in their product, but complainant has not alleged any defect in said car and he has no grievance again them. OP-2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                              We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by parties. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OP-1 did not provide free service to his car and charged Rs.1806/-from him which included Rs.708/-as labour charges. Though complainant was entitled for second service of his car fee of costs, but action of OP-1 in charging labour charges of Rs.708/- amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

11                                            From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in charging excess amount from complainant while doing second service to his car. Labour charges charged by OP-1 is an inappropriate act on the part of OP-1 and it amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.708/- excessively charged by OP-1 from complainant on account of labour charges with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 6.02.2018 i.e from the date of receiving the amount from him till final realization. Op-1 is further directed to pay Rs.8000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance of this order

cc no. 66 of 2018

be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-2  and OP-3 stands hereby dismissed as they have no role in redressing the grievance of complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 30.04.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President