DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 89 of 22.7.2020

                                      Decided on:         7/12/2022

Raj Kumar, aged about 52 years, son of late Sh.Amarjit Singh, resident of House No.214, Jai Jawan Colony, Near Army Area, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Dev Denter,M/s Sudhir Motor Garage, Back side Capital Cinema,Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Kulwant Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite parte ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Raj Kumar son of late Sh.Amarjit Singh       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dev Denter (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred that the complainant is owner of Alto car bearing registration No.PB-39-F-1209. It is averred that the said car war damaged while parking during the night of 30.10.2019. On the next day the complainant alongwith his son visited OP for repairing the car, who after inspecting the damaged car gave estimate of Rs.12,000/-and also  infored the complainant that new bonnet, new front glass and front grill will be changed with new parts. It is averred that the complainant agreed to pay Rs.12000/-for the same and left the car with the OP. It is averred that after two days the OP returned the car after repair but after 15 days, the paint of bonnet started cracking and falling. The complainant approached the OP in this regard but the OP refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The complainant also filed written complaint  with the OP against the OP but to no effect. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for acceptance of the complaint.
3. Upon notice, OP appeared but lateron  neither OP appeared nor filed written statement and was proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In order to prove the case, ld. counsel for the complainant furnished Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1, estimate given by Dev Denter, Ex.C2 estimate given by Panna Lal Motors, Ex.C3 copy of complaint to police and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The only claim sought for by the complainant is to the extent that the OP may please be directed to replace the old repaired bonnet with the new painted bonnet and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.
7. From the perusal of the record placed on the file, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the replacement of old repaired bonnet with new painted bonnet and also for Rs.1500/- as compensation .The complaint is accordingly partly allowed and the OP is directed to replace the old repaired bonnet with new painted bonnet and also to pay Rs.15,00/- as compensation to the complainant.
8.           Compliance of the order be made by the  OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

PRONOUNCED

DATED:7/12/2022.      

                                          G.S.Nagi                                 S.K.AGGARWAL

                                           Member                                  President