This is a complaint made by one Palash Tanti against Dewars Garage Ltd., praying for an order directing the OP to repair the vehicle and to remove the defect in a proper manner and in addition to above context, return the sum of Rs. 90,322/- in favour of the Complainant and for an order directing the OP to make payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the harassment and mental agony and another Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
Facts, in brief, are that the Complainant purchased one Maruti Omini Ambulance in the year 2013 for the purpose of social service and used to earn his livelihood from that Ambulance. On 24-03-2015, the car was standing at the traffic signal at Dankuni without any patient. Suddenly, a car from behind tried to overtake the Complainant’s Ambulance and in the process, damaged the outside door of the vehicle that got tilted on the right side. The damage was nominal and so the Complainant drove it to the garage of the OP. On 28-03-2015, Complainant went to the garage and asked for estimated amount of repair, but despite repeated requests, did not get any estimate. However, he paid Rs. 15,000/- as advance to the OP to facilitate repairing of the damaged Ambulance. On 20-04-2015, he again visited the garage and found that all the body parts were opened and left unrepaired. Again on 05-05-2015, the Complainant went to the garage and this time OP gave an estimate of Rs. 1,09,660/-. It is alleged that the OP, with a view to make illegal gain, unnecessarily changed even good parts and the Complainant was compelled to make payment of Rs. 90,322/-, after which the Complainant received the Ambulance. However, after taking delivery of the Ambulance on 16-05-2015, Complainant found some defects in the Ambulance and so, he approached the OP again. It is alleged that despite rechecking of the vehicle, the problem persisted. Due to such unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, Complainant suffered mental pain, harassment and agony. So, the Complainant filed this case.
OP filed WV and denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. Further, OP has stated that he did not receive Rs. 15,000/- as advance. It is also stated that Complainant’s allegation that he suffered mental pain, agony due to the conduct of the OP is baseless and he is not entitled to any compensation and litigation cost. Accordingly, OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this, OP filed questionnaire, where he put some questions to the Complainant. Thereafter, Complainant replied to the questionnaire. OP also filed Evidence-on-Affidavit, against which Complainant put questionnaire, to which OP replied.
Main point for determination is, whether the Complainant proved the allegation of the complaint petition and is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him or not.
On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to repair the vehicle and to remove the defect in a proper manner. Complainant has not specifically mentioned the defects. He has merely stated that after taking delivery of the vehicle on 16-05-2015, he noticed some defects with the Ambulance and so, he drew the attention of OP, but even after re-check, there was no improvement to the situation. We afraid, until and unless the defects are specified and identified, this Forum cannot pass any order on the basis of such imaginary/vague assertion.
That apart, on closer reflection of the Invoice dated 16-05-2015, it appears that insurance claim of the Complainant was rejected on account of improper driving license. This gives impetus to the suspicion that as because the Insurer repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant, he has come up with a concocted story of unidentified problem with the Ambulance. Further, it is important to note that there is a noting in the said invoice that dashboard and blower unit of the Ambulance got broken due to accident, but the Complainant was not ready to repair the same. Insofar as the Complainant put his signature beneath such noting without any protest, he cannot disown such facts. Such undisputed fact not only belies the contention of the Complainant that the OP unnecessarily changed some parts, one wonders, whether the Complainant is facing discomfort because of non-repairing of such damaged parts of the Ambulance.
Further, Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 90,322/- that he paid to the OP. In this respect, he has filed photocopy of one bill containing the official stamp of the OP acknowledging receipt of the said amount from the Complainant. However, the rationale of claiming refund of the entire paid amount baffles our conviction given the fact that it is not in dispute that the Ambulance is in running condition even today. Besides, it is always incumbent upon a customer to inspect the vehicle properly and fully satisfy himself about proper repairing of the same before taking delivery of the same. It does raise eyebrows that the Complainant did not raise any alarm bell before taking delivery of the vehicle and he experienced the discomfort only after taking delivery of the Ambulance. It also appears strange that although the Complainant is experiencing discomfort with the Ambulance even now, in between the period from 16-05-2015 (date of taking delivery of the vehicle) and 16-11-2015 (date of filing this case), he has not shot even a single letter to the OP specifying his displeasure with the performance of the Ambulance. Although Complainant has filed photocopy of an Accident Repair Job Slip Sheet dated 18-06-2015, the same does not contain any damage details. In fact, from the photocopy of Invoice dated 19-06-2015, it transpires that only the job of washing of body was carried out.
As regards the prayer for an order for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, we find from the Affidavit-in-Chief and Affidavit-in-Reply of the Complainant that he is using the vehicle. Accordingly, there does not appear any ground for awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the alleged mental harassment and agony. In order to get compensation, it is necessary for one to prove that one suffered harassment and mental agony due to the conduct of the service provider. From the materials on record, it is clear that the Complainant got the Ambulance repaired and paid the invoice amount without any protest. As long as the specific nature of a problem is not spelt out in unequivocal terms, how can one demand that one suffered because of such problem.
Now, coming to the issue of Complainant’s prayer for damages, we find that he has not mentioned what prompted him to claim damages. Is it for the alleged problem which he is facing now or it pertains to the period when the vehicle was being repaired. As long as ambiguity in this regard is not cleared, we feel, damages cannot be allowed.
Complainant has also prayed for litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Since Complainant has failed to establish the allegation, he is not entitled to any litigation cost. It is because it is the settled position of law that cause follows event and where the event itself remains unproven, cost cannot be awarded.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/25/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without any cost.
