BEFORE:         JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

Argued by:      

Ms. Nevadita Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Ms. Gursimran Kaur, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.    

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is the owner of vehicle i.e. Renault Duster bearing registration No.HP-07D-0079. On 01.07.2018, the vehicle developed a technical fault at Shimla, due to which, the complainant contacted Renault India Road Side Assistance and the said agency took away the vehicle on the same day and a repair job card was opened on 02.07.2018 at 10.41 AM, for which, a confirmation message was also sent to him that the vehicle was handed over to Opposite Party No.1 for repair. In the next 2-3 days, estimated date of delivery was finalized by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. 08.07.2018 but due to nature of his profession, the complainant could not reach the office of Opposite Party No.1 on the said date for receiving the said car and it was settled between the parties that the car wouldn’t be received before 18.07.2018. However, on 16.07.2018, the complainant received calls from office of Opposite Party No.1 but he was unavailable to receive the said calls, as such, Opposite Party No.1 sent message “Urgent, to call back”. Thereafter, the complainant immediately called up to office of Opposite Party No.1, where one of the Senior Executive asked him to send the documents of the vehicle  but he refused to send the same, as he would himself come over to receive the said vehicle on 18.07.2018. It was further stated that on 17.07.2018, the complainant received a call from Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula intimating that the vehicle, in question, was involved in a hit and run case dated 15.07.2018 that killed a 6 years old boy and he was asked to visit the police station immediately. On 18.07.2018, the complainant visited the police station immediately and the police recovered the said vehicle from the possession of Opposite Party No.1. Copy of repair order is Annexure C-3. An FIR No.145 dated 15.07.2018 was registered with Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula (Annexure C-4). The complainant communicated with Opposite Party No.2 and later sent an email to customer care on 20.07.2018 stating the details of the events but Opposite Party No.2 declined to extend any sort of assistance to him and refused to investigate and take action against Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the complainant paid monthly EMI of Rs.20,000/- approx.. towards the loan taken. It was further stated that MACT No.74/2019 was filed and the driver of the vehicle i.e. Pardeep, an employee of Opposite Party No.1 did not join the proceedings and, therefore, non bailable warrants were issued against the said driver. The complainant in order to seek justice, initiated criminal proceedings at Police Station New Shimla by registering FIR No.0081/2018 (Annexure C-7). Opposite Party No.1 through its letter dated 06.08.2018 addressed to DGP, Himachal Pradesh admitted the complainant’s case in its entirety (Annexure C-8). The complainant had been running from pillar to post for the purpose of getting his car released from Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula. Ultimately, the complainant sent legal notice through registered post to the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-9 colly.) but the Opposite Parties neither sent any reply nor anyone even contacted him after the said accident.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’ only), was filed.

2.             Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has admitted the contents of the complaint and submitted that the vehicle, in dispute, was repaired and was ready for delivery on 08.07.2018 but the complainant did not pay any heed to take delivery of the said vehicle. It was stated that the accident occurred during the time when Mr.Pardeep Kumar, driver who was employee of Opposite Party No.1, was shifting the vehicle from Chandigarh workshop to Panchkula workshop due to paucity of space at Chandigarh workshop. It was further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 made all efforts in order to help the complainant to get the vehicle released on superdari. Copy of email dated 24.07.2018 is attached as Annexure R-2. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.             Opposite Party No.2 in its reply has stated that the complainant handed over the said vehicle to Opposite Party No.1 and not Opposite Party No.2 and as such Opposite Party No.2 cannot be made liable for any act which has been undertaken by Opposite Party No.1 or any of its employees. It was further stated that the complainant has not disclosed that Opposite Party No.2 sent a reply to the legal notice and had rebutted the facts of the notice. It was further stated that the complainant has not placed on record any alleged record of communication, which may have taken place between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and all the interactions were done by Opposite Party No.1 or its employees, therefore, there was no deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on its part.

4.             The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

5.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

6.             The first point for consideration before us is as to whether there was any fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. It is the admitted fact that the complainant is having Renault Duster bearing registration No.HP-07D-0079 and it developed some technical defect, due to which, the said vehicle was taken by Renault Road Side Assistance and repair job card was opened on 02.07.2018 (Annexure C-2). It was also the admitted fact that estimated date of delivery was finalized by Opposite Party No.1 to be 08.07.2018 but the complainant could not reach the office of Opposite Party No.1 on the said date and it was settled that the car would not be received before 18.07.2018. It was also the admitted fact that the complainant received a call on 17.07.2018 from Panchkula Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula informed that the vehicle of the complainant involved in a hit and run case dated 15.07.2018, in which, a six year old boy was killed and was asked to visit the police station immediately. It was also the admitted fact that the vehicle was recovered from Opposite Party No.1. It was also the admitted fact that FIR No.145 dated 15.07.2018 was registered with the said police station (Annexure C-4). It was also the admitted fact that MACT No.74/2019 was filed before MACT, Panchkula, in which, Mr.Pardeep, an employee of Opposite Party No.1, who is also the driver of the said vehicle did not join the proceedings and, as such, non-bailable warrants were also issued against him. Even Opposite Party No.1 also admitted the fact of accident in its written statement as well as in written arguments.

                The allegations levelled by Opposite Party No.1 that on 08.07.2018, the complainant himself was asked to take delivery of the said vehicle but he did not come forward to take the said vehicle and due to paucity of space in its workshop, the vehicle was being transferred to workshop/bodyshop of Opposite Party No.1 at Panchkula by one of the driver Pardeep Kumar when the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of a 6 year old boy and the said fact of accident was not disclosed by Pardeep Kumar to Opposite Party No.1 and without informing the management, he parked the vehicle  and it was only when police personnel from Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula came to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1 the fact of accident came to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.1.  

                After perusal of the said averments, we are of the view that certainly there was fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1 because when the accident took place, no intimation was given to the police or to the complainant by the said person. Even Opposite Party No.1 failed to establish the fact as to how no enquiry was made by the authorized officer from the driver as and when he brought back the vehicle to Chandigarh workshop without fulfilling the actual purpose for which it was first taken out. This establishes the fact that since there is a proper mechanism set in every service center to enquire about plying of vehicles in and out of the premises, Opposite Party No.1 was in fact in knowledge of the alleged accident. If for the sake of arguments, we believe that Opposite Party No.1 had no knowledge about the accident then why Opposite Party No.1 made several calls to the complainant for sending the papers of the car. It seems that Opposite Party No.1 had full knowledge about the said accident because Mr.Pardeep is the driver of Opposite Party No.1 and with the orders of officers of Opposite Party No.1, Mr.Pardeep transferred the said vehicle from one workshop to another. Even it is the duty of Opposite Party No.1 to look after the record of the vehicle as and when taken by the drivers outside from the premises but it did not do so and it is not believable that Mr.Pardeep Kumar quietly parked the car in the workshop of Opposite Party. Due to fault of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant suffered a lot due to registeration of FIR, involving in litigation and vehicle not released from the Police Station. So, it is crystal clear that there was fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1, as such, the complainant is certainly entitled for heavy compensation from Opposite Party No.1.

7.             With regard to allegations levelled against Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, we are of the view that there was no fault on its part because Opposite Party No.2 is only the manufacturer of the said vehicle and the vehicle was parked in the premises of Opposite Party No.1 instead of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant suffered a lot due to the negligence and fault on the part of driver of Opposite Party No.1. It is not a case of manufacturing defect of the vehicle, rather it is the case of hit and run case, in which, a small boy lost his life, due to misuse of the vehicle by Opposite Party No.1. So, there was no fault on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and, as such, the complaint stands dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that this complaint is partly allowed qua Opposite Party No.1 only with the following directions :-

i)              To pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.

ii)             To pay an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs towards depreciated value of the car, which was damaged due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1.

                The aforesaid order be complied with by Opposite Party No.1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

9.             Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

May 10^th, 2022.                                     

Sd/-

                                                            (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

        MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

rb