Order-21.
Date-06/07/2015. .
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that she is the registered owner of one Hundai Elantra Car having registration No.WB 02U 0368 and OP is the service provider of the said car having its service centre at the address mentioned in the cause title of the instant complaint.
On or about first part of October, 2013 the said car is suffering from some mechanical defect of oil seal and other faults and the complainant sent the car to the workshop of the OP for servicing or repairing of the said defects and after laps of several months on or about 06-01-2014 the complainant received back her car from the OP’s service centre after paying a sum of Rs.41,421/- for the repairing of the said mechanical defect. Further for same problem she further sent the said car to the service centre for repairing on 05-02-2014 and on the last part of April, 2014 OP over phone charged Rs.1,70,000/- for repairing charges. It is specifically mentioned that when a car is sent for repairing to the workshop of the OP, the OP always provide the estimate of charges for repairing in writing to the car owners but in this event it was not done with some ulterior motive of the OP. Though after receipt of information over phone complainant asked the OP to give the estimate but till today OP failed to do so.
On or about last part of August, 2014 one person asked the complainant to provide the password of the car audio system and thereafter when there is a doubt in the mind of the complainant she and her husband then and there made a physical verification of the said car and came to know that the car audio system is stolen from the said car from the service centre of the OP and the said fact was reported to the OP and to local police station by the complainant.
At present OP illegally demanded the garage/storage charges from the complainant without any basis. In fact, there is gross negligence on the part of the OP to provide proper service to the complainant and OP has no authority to charge any amount twice for solving the defect of one mechanical defect from any consumer.
Complainant initially on 15-09-2014 sent a notice through his Advocate to the OP in respect of his grievances and further informed the OP to handover the said car on the exact date of delivery and to enable the complainant to ascertain the next course of her action against the misdeeds of the OP but the OP does not want to release the car until and unless the garage rent would be paid by the complainant.
It is further stated by the complainant that incompleteness of the service provided by the OP in respect of the said car caused huge monetary burden on the complainant as such complainant is entitled to get damages at the rateRs.500/- per day as damage for her regular transportation cost to the OP since 05-02-2014 till the last date of October, 2014 and in the above circumstances, for negligent activities on the part of the OP complainant has filed this complaint praying for refund of the said car and compensation and for other redressal.
On the other hand OP by filing written statement has denied all the allegations made by the complainant against the OP.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant sent her car to the OP for service of the same with certain mechanical fault for oil ceal and other faults. The OP had noticed that the faulting system of the complainant’s car had already been repaired by one New Sagar Diesel on 17-10-2013 before sending the car to the OP for the purpose of repair. After proper repair of the defects of the car it was handed over to the complainant on payments of repair charges. Further it is alleged by the OP that the New Sagar Diesel is/was never an authorized service centre of the manufacturer of the car Hyundai Motors. Fact remains complainant again sent the car to the OP for repair on 07-02-2014 with a complain of engine overheating and other problems. The OP had given a detail repair job to be done for such repair on 10-02-2014 but since then either the complainant did not make any communication and/or correspondence with the OP or visited the OP’s workshop to enquire about the status of the car or what would be necessary for the repair of the same. In fact the said car of the complainant was lying at the OP’s garage and the subject car has occupied a space in the workshop since 07-02-2014 causing severe inconvenience to the OP and in terms of the Hyundai Motor’s workshop rules and regulations all over India, the owner of the vehicle have to pay occupation charges at the rateRs.250 per month till its taking delivery by the owner.
All on a sudden on 10-08-2014 at about 10.36 a.m. Pankaj Jalan one of the officials of the OP received an e-mail from the complainant and from which it was learnt that complainant alleged certain incident of theft of parts from her car and certain valuable electronic items which were allegedly installed in the said car and in the said e-mail she made certain allegations against one Atanu and worker of the OP’s workshop and also alleged that the incidence of theft was noticed by her driver on 08-08-2014 but according to the OP no such incident of theft occurred at the garage of the OP which was duly reported to one Pankaj Jalal by her e-mail dated 12-08-2014 at 08.04 p.m. regarding the result of alleged teleconference held on 11-08-2014.
OP further submitted that when the complainant made a phone call to workshop of the OP the attending employee of the OP categorically intimated her that no theft or breaking of door glass had occurred or nothing was stolen from her car and moreover, the attending employee of the OP asked her for a visit to the workshop to have a look of her car which is lying in a corner of the workshop but the complainant did neither visit the workshop or make any inspection to verify the actual condition of the car.
But OP further submitted that complainant wrongly informed about alleged incident of theft of valuable electrical articles from her car and she did so many things including lodging diary before the concerned police station did not visit the OP’s workshop for physical verification of the condition of her car, but the complainant is very much interested about her claim, compensation from the OP than that of taking her car back by paying garage charges etc.
On the other hand OP sent an e-mail dated 11-09-2014 to the complainant requesting her to take back her car immediately but complainant did not turn up. It is further submitted that OP never made any phone calls claiming payment of Rs.1,70,000/- for repairing charge.
Further it is submitted that the entire complaint is false, frivolous and mala fide and in fact for the purpose of some illegal gain complainant has filed this case procuring fabricated, concocted story and baseless allegation against the OP without any document.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant herself in 07-02-2014 from the date of sending the subject car to the workshop of the OP for necessary repair kept herself silent till the middle of August, 2014. Complainant did not file any cogent documents or letters justifying her such long silence, on the contrary complainant filed this false allegation for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On proper evaluation of the materials on record including the fact of the complaint and defence as taken by the OP that is the written version and also hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyer it is found that the admitted position is that the car of the complainant is still in the garage of the OP since 07-02-2014 and it is admitted position that this car was sent for repairing purpose and thereafter, complainant did not meet the OP for repairing the said car and job voucher was not issued no doubt but question of job voucher shall arise when complainant shall ask the OP for submitting such written quotation. In fact, complainant herself in writing submitted to the O.C. Entally P.S. on 30-08-2014 that due to hospitalization of her husband he could not arrange the money for necessary repairing when that is the fact then it is proved that complainant had her no capacity to pay the repairing cost for which she did not ask the OP for repairing of the said car. So, anyhow if the car has not been repaired for that reason OP is not liable but fact remains car is in the custody of the OP so, it must be kept safely by the OP till it is taken back by the complainant.
In fact, complainant has alleged that from her car some parts were stolen but anyhow complainant has failed to prove by any cogent documents that parts were stolen from the said vehicle. On the contrary OP has stated that car is in their custody and no parts or any portion of the car was stolen or damaged. Truth is that since 07-02-2014 the car is lying in the garage of the OP, in fact, OP has claimed garage charge as per their rules and regulation what complainant is not willing to pay which is already proved. Then question is whether OP is entitled to get any garage charge in this regard we have gathered from certain papers and regulations of the garage charges of Jalan Hundai distributors that as per Hundai Rules that in the above daily customer have no objection Jalan Distributer charging storage charges at the rateRs.250/- per day along with charges of repairing spare parts etc. and Customer Regional Manager, distributor reported this vide e-mail to the complainant on 11-09-2014 but prior to that on 30-04-2014 complainant lodged a complaint against Jalan Hundai about theft of articles to O.C. Entally P.S. but when OP has specifically mentioned in his written version that no parts were stolen and nothing was broken by any theft in respect of the car and car is in good condition everything is OK then we rely upon the OP’s version that no such incident took place and when complainant has failed to prove any such report by holding such inspection by any expert in this regard. But anyhow after thorough study of entire complaint, written version including documents we have gathered that this complaint was filed by the complainant only to get release of the car from the custody of the OP without any payment of garage charges or repairing charges etc. Anyhow, OP has not stated that they have repaired the same, no such paper has been produced by the OP that they have repaired it and new parts has been installed and car is in OK condition. So, it is clear no job sheet was prepared even after handing over the car to the OP on 07-02-2014 by the complainant. In the above situation we find that OP cannot keep the said car confined in their garage but OP must have to hand over the said car to the complainant in good condition that is roadable condition immediately after receipt of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as garage charge as a composite charge and complainant shall have to pay it and take charge of the said vehicle by signing the delivery challan that she has received the car and there is no such defect or any mark of breaking and in fact, OP shall hand over the car in good condition that is roadable condition and accordingly the final order is passed.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost against the OP.
Complainant shall have to pay Rs.10,000/- as composite garage charge to the OP and OP shall have to hand over the present car (WB 02U0368) in a good condition and in roadable condition forthwith on proper receipt but payment of Rs.10,000/- must be made by the complainant within one month from the date of this order and from the date of payment OP shall have to handover the car in proper receipt and on roadable condition and if complainant complies the order in that case OP shall have to comply it forthwith and if it is not complied in that case OP shall have to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and necessary order shall be passed by this Forum for implementation of this order for recovery of the car from the possession of the OP and for which penal interest at the rateRs.200/- shall be assessed till delivery of the car to the complainant by the OP and in case of disobeyance of the Forum’s order till recovery of the car by the Forum for delivery to the complainant for implementation of the Forum’s order penal action shall be started against them for which they shall have imposed further penalty and fine.
Parties to comply the order within one month from the date of this order and submitted the report about compliance otherwise next step shall be taken against the OP if complainant is found diligent in paying the said amount.
