STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.198 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 14.05.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 12.11.2010

Sh. Jai Kumar resident of House No.B-43, Sector 14, Chandigarh (Old Address:-House No.3442, Sector 38D, Chandigarh).

……Appellant

V e r s u s

CMPL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager, Plot No.52, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Jai Kumar, appellant in person.

                        Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the respondent.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                     This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the C. P. Act) against the order dated 13.4.2010, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed and the OP was directed to replace the petrol tank of his motorcycle with a brand new petrol tank free of cost within four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order failing which they were directed to refund him Rs.2,961/- along with interest @18% pre annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 2.9.2009 till the date of realization.

2.                     The case of the complainant is that there was major dent in the petrol tank of his motorcycle regarding which he lodged an insurance claim and was called by the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company to the premises of the OP.  The complainant made the payment of Rs.2,961/- and the petrol tank was to be replaced with a brand new petrol tank. The OP advised him to come after 15 days as the petrol tank was out of stock. He made written request and sent e-mails but when nobody heard him, he made complaints against the OP to the higher authorities. He received a phone call on 26.8.2009 upon which the complainant went to the workshop on 27.8.2009, waited there for about one hour and when he went to the basement of the workshop to check about the status of his motorcycle, he was shocked to see that the petrol tank, which was being fitted on his motorcycle was having a huge dent on its upper side. He objected to it but nobody listened to him and the dented tank was fitted. Again on 27.8.2009, the OP filled up a Job Card again for the replacement of the petrol tank but a new petrol tank was not fitted on his motorcycle and he still carries the petrol tank having a huge dent in it. He, therefore, moved the present complaint alleging that it was an unfair trade practice causing him mental loss and harassment including loss of his valuable time. He prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with costs of litigation.

3.                     The OP contested the complaint denying if the motorcycle was brought to its workshop for replacement of the petrol tank alone. According to the OP, it was a case of accidental repairs. OP admitted the visit of the surveyor and the receipt of Rs.2,961/- but it was denied if a petrol tank with a dent was fixed on his motorcycle. It was denied if the petrol tank was out of stock or the complainant made any complaints or sent e-mails about the deficiency in service on its part. It was admitted that the complainant approached them on 27.8.2009 and requested them to check the petrol tank upon which it was taken to the workshop and was found to be perfect/OK. There was no crack/leakage from the petrol tank. According to the OP, on 18.8.2009, a brand new and perfect petrol tank was fitted in the vehicle. The OP denied any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on its part.

4.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in the terms as mentioned in the opening para of this order.

6.                     The complainant has assailed the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

8.                     The contention of Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate, learned counsel for the OP is that a brand new petrol tank was fitted on the motorcycle of the complainant and if he is not satisfied with the same, they are still ready to replace the same with a brand new petrol tank. It is admitted that they have already charged Rs.2,961/- from the complainant vide receipt (Annexure –A) for the replacement of the petrol tank and the petrol tank was duly replaced by him earlier also. Their contention is that on 18.8.2009, a brand new and perfect conditioned petrol tank was fitted on his vehicle.  The complainant has produced the copy of e-mail (Annexure – D) showing that the amount of Rs.2,961/- was deposited by the complainant on that date but no petrol tank was supplied to him because it was reported to be out of stock. He was asked to come again after 15 days i.e. by 1.9.2009. In this respect, he also wrote a letter (Annexure –E) and it was delivered through courier, the receipt of which is Annexure-E). The OP never sent any reply to it. The OP has not produced its stock register to suggest if it had the petrol tank in the stock, which was installed in the motorcycle of the complainant. Rather Annexure G-2 is the copy of e-mail intimating to the complainant that they had ordered the petrol tank and it would be received within a week and that they would inform him about its receipt. No mention was made in this e-mail if they had already provided him with a new petrol tank. The complainant then replied to this e-mail vide Annexure G-3 on 28.8.2009 and it was after a long correspondence that the petrol tank was replaced but with a defective piece. Thereafter, the OP is alleged to have again called the complainant, prepared the job card to show that the petrol tank has been replaced with a new one but again they did not replace the same. It is, therefore, a case of not only deficiency in service and unfair trade practice but of high handedness on the part of OP in harassing a customer even after obtaining from him the price of the automobile part and causing him mental and physical harassment. The learned District Forum has not granted him any substantial relief after allowing his complaint because the relief granted is that the order is to be complied with within four weeks and if the OP do not comply with the order, it is to pay only Rs.2,961/- along with interest, which it had already received from the complainant. The relief part, therefore, needs to be modified.

9.                     In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the conduct of the OP, we are of the opinion that the appeal be allowed and therefore, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the OP is directed to replace the existing petrol tank with a brand new petrol tank free of cost and also to pay him Rs.10,000/- as compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and causing him harassment. The order shall be carried out within two weeks from the date on which the copy of the order is received by the OP failing which it would pay the amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and shall refund the amount of Rs.2,961/- along with interest @18% per annum, which in case of Rs.2,961/- shall be calculated from the date of deposit i.e. 18.8.2009 and in case of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its payment. The complainant would also be entitled to Rs.2,200/- as costs of litigation.

10.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

12^th November 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.198 of 2010)

Argued by:          Sh. Jai Kumar, appellant in person.

                        Sh. Arun Dogra, Advocate for the respondent.

Dated the 12^th day of November, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been allowed.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER