BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.124 of 2016
Date of Instt. 15.03.2016
Date of Decision :25.10.2016
Arun Sehgal aged about 62 years of Sh. Kewal Krishan resident of House No. 329, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
City Point Service Station, Avtar Nagar Road, Opp. Hotel Regent Park, Jalandhar through its Proprietor/ Managing Director.
Monic Sohal Proprietor/ Managing Partner of City Point Service Station, Avtar Nagar Road, Opp. Hotel Regent Park, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Vijay Sharma Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Naveen Chhabra Adv., counsel for the OPs.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OPs), on the averments that he is owner of Hyundai Accent car bearing registration No. PB-06-D-3888. The complainant approached the opposite parties for a job of denting and painting of the aforesaid car on 19/6/2014 and handed over the vehicle to the OP No.2. The opposite parties issued job card dated 19/6/2014 to the complainant. The opposite parties assured the complainant that they do the job to the satisfaction of the customer. Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite parties so many times and also gave telephonic request to the complainant but opposite parties did not complete the job work and failed to return the vehicle to the complainant. Since 19/6/2014, the Accent car has been lying with the opposite parties and the car has developed rust as the opposite parties have dismantled the body parts of the aforesaid car. The complainant sent written request dated 16/12/2015 to the opposite parties by speed post but inspite of that, the opposite parties did not complete the job work nor returned the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Resultantly, the complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to handover the car in question till repaired as per job card. The complainant also claimed Rs. 20,000/- the amounts spent by him on hiring taxies, Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss of value of the car or to pay the full value of the car alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of job card till the payment is made. The complainant also demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment etc as well as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which they submitted that complaint has been filed by the complainant to harass and pressurize the opposite party. The complainant has misled this forum, infact the complainant approached the opposite parties forgetting his car No. PB-06-D-3888 Hyundai Accent Model 2002 for repair with the intention to get insurance from the insurance company. The aforesaid car was not in good condition and required complete denting/painting, chasis/ floor was totally damaged. The opposite party gave estimate on 19/6/2014 and issued job card to the complainant. The complainant was accompanied by a surveyor who took the photos of the damaged car in question. The intention of the complainant was to get an insurance claim from United Insurance Company. The opposite parties started doing job, denting was complete and running bolt were also fixed. The opposite party contacted the complainant to make the payment in advance to enable the opposite parties to complete the job work but the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of the opposite parties. Actually the insurance company refused to give any claim to the complainant for the reason best known to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant never visited the opposite party to know about the conditions/ position of the car. The complainant has not paid even a single penny to the opposite parties inspite of repeated requests made on phone and personal request made by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant was also requested to lift the car from the workshop which is lying unnecessarily and blocked the space in the workshop of the opposite party. The complainant told the opposite party that he would visit their workshop and dispose of the car to some buyer and the payment of job done will also be made. On 16/12/2015, there was hot exchange of words between the complainant and opposite parties regarding the payment demanded by the opposite party of the job done. The opposite parties have not received any letter dated 16/01/2015 from the complainant. The present complaint is totally baseless and misuse of process of law and has been filed to harass the opposite party. The opposite party has already incurred about Rs. 10,000/- on the denting and affixing running balls in the car and opposite parties are entitled to recover this amount alongwith other expenses such as car parking in the workshop of the opposite party unnecessarily by the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/A and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, we have come to conclusion that complainant is the owner of Hyundai Accent car bearing registration No. Pb-06-D-3888 which is 2002 model. The said car suffered damaged and the complainant approached the opposite party on 19/6/2014 for denting, painting and repair of the car in question. The opposite party checked the car in question and issued job card dated 19/6/2014 Ex. C2 showing the estimate cost of repair of the car which included denting, painting, spare parts, etc but did not include labour charges. The car was very old i.e. 2002 model and was not in good condition, it required complete denting/painting, chasis/floor was totally damaged. The opposite party started doing job work and the denting was complete and running bolt was also fixed as deposed by OP No.2 in his affidavit Ex. DW1/A. Thereafter the opposite party contacted the complainant to make the payment in advance to enable the opposite party to complete the job work as per job card but the complainant did not pay any amount to the opposite party nor paid any heed to the request made by the opposite party to the complainant. Even the opposite party requested the complainant to lift the car from the workshop as it is lying uselessly and blocked the space in the workshop but the complainant neither paid any amount to the OP to carry out the job of repair of the car in question which was very old i.e. more than 12 years old car and was not in a good condition. The complainant also did not lift the car from the workshop of the opposite party. So, it stands fully proved on record that both the parties have not completed their promises and both the parties are adament, the complainant is adamant in not making the payment of any amount to the opposite party so that, the opposite party could carry out the repair job. The opposite party is adamant in not completing the repair job of the car in question as the complainant has not made any payment in advance, so that, the opposite party could carry out the repair work. So, we have come to the conclusion that both the parties are at fault. As such the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to make atleast 50% payment of the estimate given by the opposite party in the job card Ex. C2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and thereafter, the opposite parties are directed to complete the repair job work of the car in question within two months and make it fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant and then hand over the invoice of actual cost incurred by the opposite party on the repair of the car in question alongwith labour charges and then the opposite party shall hand over the car in question to the complainant on payment of the amount of said invoice. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
25.10.2016 Member President
