CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.630/2008
SH. RAJ KUMAR
S/O SH. PURAN CHAND
R/O H.NO.1410-A, GALI NO.13,
GOVIND PURI, KALKAJI,
NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S DELHI AUTO SPARES
SHOP NO.2, PLOT NO.131/1-2,
BUDH VIHAR, MATHURA ROAD,
BADARPUR,
NEW DELHI-110044
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. MUKESH GARG
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 02.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant approached OP on 28.4.2007 for installation of CNG Kit in his vehicle TATA Indica Xeta Car No.DL1YA8582. OP agreed to install the same with all accessories, CNG cylinder and Lamda Control System at a total cost of Rs.28,125/-. Complainant paid OP Rs.8,000/- as advance on 29.3.2007. OP installed the CNG Kit and Cylinder on 29.3.2007 and on the same day complainant was asked to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- saying that it has incurred more cost than the agreed one. As complainant was in urgent need of the vehicle, he paid Rs.25,000/- by cheque No.283524 which was encashed by OP on 03.4.2007.
After 3-4 day complainant started experiencing some problems such as CNG leakage, frequent blasting sounds etc. in the said vehicle after the installation of the Kit by OP.
Complainant went to OP on 08.4.2007 for getting the vehicle checked and repaired for the above defects within the guarantee period of three years. After two days when complainant went to take the vehicle, he found that OP had not repaired the said faults. Complaint asked OP to replace the CNG Kit as OP were not in a position to repair the installed one for which OP demanded additional Rs.10,000/-. Complainant did not agree as the replacement was asked within guarantee period.
OP had charged Rs.1200/- for installation of Lamda Control System but it did not install the same while installing the CNG Kit.
It is further stated in the complaint that complainant was incurring loss and facing lot of problems as vehicle was used as taxi and the permanent driver was engaged.
When OP did not replace the Kit and also not repaired the same, the complainant was compelled to get it temporarily serviced at other stations and spent Rs.30000/-.
Complainant again approached OP and complainant left the vehicle with OP and it remained with OP for the period from 12.7.2008 to 19.7.2008. However, OP did not change the CNG Kit.
It is further stated that OP forced complainant to pay Rs.40,000/- in total and thereby charged Rs.11875/- more than the agreed amount. It is further averred that OP had not issued bills for the said amount at the time of receiving the payment. OP partly issued the duplicate copy of retail invoice Nos.209/08-09, 210/08-09 and 211/08-09 all dated 12.4.2008 after repeated request made by the complainant.
Complainant has prayed for Rs.3,17,000/- towards compensation as well as financial loss and mental harassment and also claimed Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.
OP in the written arguments stated that complaint has not come with true facts before this Forum and concealed the material facts. It is stated that complainant approached OP in December 2006 for installation of CNG Kit in car No.DL1YA6703. OP installed the CNG Kit in the above said car and raised the invoice in favour Mr. Sanjeev Sharma at the request of complainant for agreed price of Rs.33,000/-.
Complainant in order to discharge his liability made the payment of Rs.8,000/- by credit card on 29.3.2007 and Rs.25000/- by cheque bearing No.283524 dated 30.3.2007 i.e. after a period of three months from installation of CNG Kit which complainant now claims to be the payment against the fitting of CNG Kit in the car bearing NO.DL1YA8582 whereas admittedly the CNG Kit in car bearing No.DL1YA8582 was fitted on 12.4.2008.
Complainant again approached OP in the month of April 2008 for installation of CNG Kit in car No.DL1YA8582. OP installed the CNG Kit and cylinder at the agreed price of Rs.29825/- on 12.4.2008 and raised invoice Nos.209, 210 and 211 dated 12.4.2008 for Rs.28125/-, Rs.1200/- and Rs.500/- respectively.
Complainant assured OP that he will make the payment within few days and as the complainant earlier also made the payment after some time, OP agreed for the same. Complainant issued a cheque bearing No.895001 for a sum of Rs.6000/- in favour of OP as part payment. However, the said cheque was returned unpaid by the bank of the complainant with the remarks “stop payment”. When OP pressed the complainant for payment and told the complainant if he will not make the payment, OP will take legal action then only the complainant came to the workshop of OP on 19.7.2009 and made the payment of Rs.7000/- by credit card. Still the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.22825/- to OP. The complainant never approached to OP with any problem as mentioned in the complaint.
It is further stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as CNG Kit and cylinder purchased were purely for commercial purposes to run the taxi. It is further stated that OP has installed Lamda Control System in the car of the complainant as the same is mandatory. It is further stated that at the time of endorsement of CNG in the Registration Certificate of the car, the inspection is carried out by the RTO/MLO and without Lamda Control System the CNG cannot be endorsed in the Registration Certificate of the car. It is mandatory to endorse the CNG in Registration Certificate of the car within a period of 15 days of its installation. The fact that there is endorsement of CNG in the Registration Certificate of car of the complainant clearly shows that the Lamda Control System was in the car of the complainant at the time of inspection.
We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and carefully perused the record and gone thorough the evidence of parties.
As per the complainant, he got the CNG and cylinder fitted in his car bearing No. DL1YA8582. It is an admitted fact that same is being used as taxi and is driven by his driver. In para 7 of the complaint, it is stated that complainant was incurring loss and facing lot of problem as the vehicle was used as taxi and a permanent driver was engaged. Complainant has nowhere stated in his entire complaint that he is plying the aforesaid taxi to earn his livelihood.
In the written arguments, it is specifically stated that the complainant is not a consumer as is using the taxi for commercial purposes. In the rejoinder the complainant stated that he is using the aforesaid vehicle to earn his livelihood. It is secured law that in the replication that no new plea can be taken and only the averments made in the WS can be controverted.
The most important thing is that complainant filed his affidavit in support of his case. In the entire affidavit complainant has nowhere stated that he is plying the aforesaid taxi to earn his livelihood. Since complainant is running the vehicle for commercial purposes, he is not a consumer.
Even otherwise it seems that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. In para 1 of the complaint, it is stated that on 28.4.2007 complainant approached OP for installation of CNG Kit in his vehicle No.DL1YA8582 for a total cost of Rs.28,125/- and complainant paid OP Rs.8,000/- as advance vide invoice No.0000000226 through credit card on 29.3.2007. If the complainant approached OP on 28.4.2007 for installation of CNG then where was the occasion to pay an advance of Rs.29.3.2007. It is further stated that complainant paid Rs.25000/- to OP vide cheque No.283524 on 03.4.2007. Where is the question of making the payment on 03.4.2007 if the complainant has approached the OP for installation of CNG on 28.4.2007.
OP has stated that earlier payment was in respect of car bearing No.DL1YA6703 and that the invoice was raised in respect of one Mr. Sanjeev Sharma and that invoice was for a sum of Rs.33,000/- and that payment of Rs.8000/- and Rs.25000/- was in respect of that car. OP has plaed on record invoice dated 12.4.2008 in respect of car bearing No. DL1YA8582 for a sum of Rs.29825/- for CNG Kit and CNG cylinder. Complainant has issued a cheque for Rs.6000/- and the same bounced. Complaint has not stated anything about the same. From the evidence of OP, it is clear that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and as already stated above that complainant is not a consumer hence the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
