| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 554 of 28.12.2021 Decided on: 7.10.2024 Surinder Singh aged about 50 years S/o Sh.Mohinder Singh R/o H.No.3, Power Colony No.2, Shakti Vihar, Near Badungar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Bhagat Ford, A B Motors Pvt. Ltd., 1 Jagdish Marg, The Mall, Patiala.
- Ford India Private Limited, S.P.Koil Post, Chengalpattu-603204, Tamilnadu.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Surinder Singh, complainant in person Sh.M.S.Pandher, counsel for OP no.1. OP No.2 ex-parte. ORDER PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Surinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bhagat Ford and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
- It is averred in the complaint that the complainant gave his car ECO Sport bearing No.PB-11-CM-4758 for service at Bhagat Ford i.e. OP No.1 on 7.9.2021. It is averred that while servicing, indicator, dipper and wiper of the car stopped working and to rectify the defect complainant gave his car at service station from 8.9.2021 to 20.10.2021, as per direction of service supervisor. The complainant has averred that the staff of service station used his car for the said period. It is averred that the service station rectified these fault on 20.10.2021 and raised bill of Rs.25000/- and after giving discount got deposited Rs.20,000/- from the complainant through card. It is averred that these defects occurred during service and the charging of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant is illegal. Complainant made request to the service for the refund of the amount so got deposited from him. Thereafter he also sent notice through email on 1.12.2021 for refund of Rs.20,000/- but they refused to do so. That the act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- so charged from him and also to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
- Notice of the complaint was duly issued to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply having contested the complaint whereas notice issued to OP No.2 through registered post neither received back unserved nor OP No.2 appeared to contest the case and accordingly OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.
- In the written reply filed by OP No.1 it is admitted that complainant gave his car in question for service to OP No.1 on 7.9.2021 and the work of service was done. It is further admitted that faults were removed and OP raised bill of Rs.25000/- and after discount Rs.20,000/- were paid by the complainant. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. All other averments of the complainant have been denied by the OPs and prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Mukesh Verma, authority holder of OP No.1 alongwith his counsel Sh.M.S.Pandher, has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his affidavit alongwith authority letter,Ex.OP1. No other evidence has been lead by OP No.1.
- We have heard the complainant, ld. counsel for OP No.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Complainant has filed this complaint with the allegations that he gave his car PB-11-CM-4758 for service to OP No.1 on 7.9.2021 and he took his car back on the same day after service and in this regard he has proved copy of a bill as Ex.C1. The complainant has further alleged that while servicing , indicator, dipper and wiper of the car stopped working and to rectify these faults he gave his car at service station of OP no.1 on 8.9.2021.
- The OP No.2 has not come forward to contest the complaint but OP No.1 has contested the complaint and admitted that on 7.9.2021 car of complainant bearing No. PB-11-CM-4758 came to its workshop for the service and after service it was handed over to the complainant.
- The case of the complainant is that while servicing, indicator, dipper and wiper of his car stopped working and the OP1 has created these faults. But OP no.1 has denied this fact and has stated that the required service was provided and the complainant took back his car, but on the next day he came with the problem that the indicator, dipper and wiper of the car had stopped working, so said defects were removed and accordingly amount of Rs.20,000/- was received by OP No.1 in this regard.
- The complainant has failed to produce any evidence to show that indicator, dipper and wiper of his car were damaged by OP No.1 while servicing and without any evidence no presumption can be raised in this regard. From the perusal of bill of service,Ex.C1, we find that wheel balancing etc. were done. Car was washed and engine oil, filter oil and filter air cleaner were changed. The bill itself shows that the system of indicator, dipper or wiper was not touched by OP no.1 while in service. So in the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that fault was created by OP No.1 during service. So the amount for repairing the fault was rightly received by OP no.1 and as such we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
G.S.Nagi PUSHVINDER SINGH Member President | |
