DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 33 of 2018

 

Shri Gathan Datta,

S/O. Lt. Ratish Ch. Datta,

Vill. Betaga, P.O.-Betaga,

P.S.-Santirbazar,

Dist.-South Tripura, .…..…...........................Complainant.

 

 

 

           VERSUS

 

 

1). M/S. Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Represented by its General Manager,

Service, Math Choumohani, Jail Road,

Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala-799001,

P.S.-East Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura. …...............….............Opposite party. 

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Surajit Choudhuri,

  Sri Anupam Pal,

  Advocates. 

                                                                           For the O.P. : Sri Subhajit Paul,Advocate.                                                                                                                                  

  

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  10/06/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Gathan Datta, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.P. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that he is the owner of the vehicle(Hydrolic Tripper) bearing No.TR0381570. The vehicle was placed in running condition at the workshop of the O.P. M/S. Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd on 04/04/2016 with the complain of excessive intake of mobile. The O.P. had assured the complainant that the problem will be rectified. The Complainant alleged that in spite of the assurance of the O.P., his vehicle was not attended to even though he had visited the workshop 20 times on different occasions. On 15/05/2017 the O.P. issued a letter by referring the Job Card No. JC-PrgAut-AP1-1617-000018 dated 04/04/2016 informed him that his vehicle got checked but the problems in the vehicle could not be rectified on account of non approval from his end of the estimated bill of Rs.1,08,000/- even after information given to him several times. By this letter the O.P. also informed the Complainant that there was space constrain in his workshop and it is necessary on his part(the Complainant) to take the vehicle back without delay. The O.P. further informed the Complainant that he would require to pay Rs. 500/- per day as parking charge w.e.f. July, 2016 and that the total parking charge comes to Rs.1,57,500/-. The O.P. also informed the Complainant that any damage caused to his vehicle shall be entirely at his cost and that no liability/responsibility in this regard can be fixed upon the O.P. In response to the said letter of the O.P., the Complainant on 30/03/2018 issued a letter to the O.P. intimating him that when his vehicle was placed at the garage of the O.P. it had problem of consumption of excessive mobile and that there was no other complain in his vehicle. He further stated in his letter that from 04/04/2016 to 15/05/2017 the O.P. did not inform him about the parking charge to be levied @ Rs.500/- per day and that due to non-utilization of his vehicle, he had to incur loss @ Rs.2000/- per day being the hiring charges of his vehicle and thus the O.P. is liable to pay Rs.6,30,000/- to him in addition to other damages caused to the vehicle. The Complainant further alleged in his complaint that on 16/04/2018 the O.P. sent an E-mail intimating him about the estimated cost of repairing charge of his vehicle as Rs.1,57,500/- whereas by the letter dated 15/05/2017 the O.P. had demanded Rs.1,08,000/- for the said purpose. The Complainant became confused as to what is the correct figure. The Complainant has asserted in his complaint that he is to maintain  his family depending upon the income from his vehicle. The Complainant further alleged in his complaint that he made several attempts to resolve the issue with the O.P. over phone but all his attempts went in vain as neither the O.P. nor his staff was willing  to talk to him.

Being  aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint claiming Rs.14,78,000/- being the hiring charges w.e.f. 04/04/2016 to 13/04/2018 @ Rs.2,000/- per day, Rs.4 lac being other damages caused to his vehicle due to non attending the problem of his vehicle, Rs.30,000/- being compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.19,23,000/- from the O.P. 

Hence this case.  

The O.P. M/S. Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on receipt of the notice from this Forum appeared and filed written statement refuting the claims and allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. has denied the assertion of the complainant that at the time of placing the vehicle TR-03B-1570 of the Complainant it had minor problem, rather according to the O.P. the said vehicle had many other problems and defects which had arisen due to mishandling of the said vehicle and that the Complainant had been duly intimated by the O.P. about the same. The O.P. further stated in his written statement that he  had verbally intimated the complainant that the estimated cost of repairing charge of the vehicle would be done after opening the effected parts and machinery of the vehicle. At this the Complainant asked for few days time to think over the matter and had assured the O.P. that he would contact the O.P. and convey his decision as to whether he would get the repair work done by the O.P. or not. The O.P. has denied the assertion of the complainant about his visiting the workshop of 20 times on different occasions. The O.P. further stated in his written statement that when he found the Complainant was sleeping over the issue, he on 15/07/2017 issued a letter to the Complainant intimating him about the estimated bill for repairing the vehicle of the Complainant. The O.P. has asserted that by his letter dated 15/05/2017 he has rightly demanded the parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day against the vehicle TR-03B-1570 from the complainant. According to the O.P. the complainant without any justifiable ground had demanded Rs.2,000/- per day from him as hiring charges of the vehicle from 04/04/2016 to 15/05/2017 as according to the O.P. the complainant was himself responsible for the delay and that for his own latches his vehicle having been parked in the Garage. 

    The O.P. has denied guilty of deficiency of service of any kind towards the complainant. He thus prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 

      

 

   EVIDENCE ADDUCE BY THE PARTIES:

3. In this case the Complainant produced Examination-in-Chief of himself and also submitted 07 documents namely copy of letter dated 15/05/2017 issued by the O.P., copy of the letter dated 30/03/2018 issued by the Complainant to the O.P., Copies of letters dated 14/04/2018 & 27/04/2018 issued by the complainant to the O.P., E-mail dated 16/04/2018 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Copy of letter dated 26/04/2018 issued by the O.P. to the Complainant & Copy of letter dated 27/04/2018 issued by the O.P. to the Complainant. The documents are marked Exhibit-I series. 

The O.P. side also produced Examination-in-Chief of one witness namely Sri Jitesh Kr. Singh who is the General Manager(Service) of the O.P. The said witness has produced 08 documents namely Copy of letter of the O.P. dated 15/05/2017, Copy of letter of the Complainant dated 30/03/2018, Copy of letter of the Complainant dated 14/04/2018, Copy of letter of the O.P. dated 26/04/2018, E-mail of the complainant dated 26/04/2018, Copy of letter of the complainant dated 27/04/2018, Copy of letter of the O.P. dated 27/04/2018 & Copy of the letter of the O.P. dated 31/05/2018. All the documents are marked Exhibit-A series.

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4. (I). Whether the O.P. is guilty of deficiency of service of any kind towards the complainant ?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/relief as prayed for? 

 

5. DECISIONS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

    We have heard arguments advanced by Learned Advocate from both sides. We have perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by both the parties. 

  Learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant has contended that the O.P. being the service provider did not attend the Hydriolic Tripper Vehicle of the Complainant which was placed in the garage of the O.P. more than one(01) year prior to the letter dated 15/05/2017 sent by the O.P. to the Complainant asking for his approval regarding the estimated amount for undertaking the repairing work of the vehicle.  The vehicle was placed in the garage on 04/04/2016 with the problem of excessive consumption of mobile. Learned Counsel further argued that though the O.P. gave assurance to the Complainant that the problem in the vehicle would be looked into and got rectified but the O.P. did nothing inspite of approach made by the Complainant in this regard to the O.P. several times. It was on 15/05/2017 the O.P. sent a letter to the Complainant intimating him that the problems in the vehicle could not be attended to on account of non approval of the estimated amount for repairing charges of the vehicle of Rs.1,08,000/- from the Complainant's side and that in spite of asking the complainant to take back his vehicle from the garage, the complainant did not take any initiative in this regard. The O.P. by the said letter demanded Rs.1,57,500/- as parking charges from the Complainant. 

 

 

  Learned Counsel further argued that the Complainant was all along agile to get his vehicle repaired but because of the latches on the part of the O.P. the Complainant suffered huge financial loss for keeping his vehicle off road apart from his vehicle's condition getting deteriorated day by day.

Learned Counsel also contended that the O.P. is guilty of committing deficiency of service and as such the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for. 

    Per-contra Learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. argued that the Complainant has utterly failed to make out the case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the O.P. has never dealt with the matter of the Complainant in negligent manner. 

    Learned Counsel has contended that the Complainant was not diligent as to his vehicle after placing the vehicle in the garage of the O.P. for repairing. Accordingly to the Learned Counsel, the Complainant did never come forward for giving approval to the estimated amount raised by the O.P. for getting the vehicle repaired by the O.P. The Complainant had slept over the matter for more than one year and as such the O.P. having found no other alternative issued the letter dated 15/05/2017 requesting the Complainant to accord approval to the estimated bill of Rs.1,08,000/- so as to enable the O.P. to carry out the repairing work. By the said letter the O.P. also insisted upon the Complainant to take back the vehicle failing which the O.P. is liable to pay  Rs.1,57,500/- as parking charges @ Rs.500/- per month from July, 2016. The O.P. was pressing for payment of the parking charge as the garage of the O.P. is having space constraints. Learned Counsel further argued that the plea of the Complainant that he had visited the garage of the O.P. 20 times within one year from the date of placing of vehicle in the garage but in course of cross examination he could not say from when the period of one year begins.  It was further argued by the Learned Counsel that even after receipt of the  letter dated 15/05/2017 of the O.P., the Complainant remained silent for more than six(06) months and that on 30/03/2018 the complainant issued a letter to the O.P. demanding Rs.6,30,000/- being the financial loss suffered by him as hiring charges of his vehicle for the period from 04/04/2016 to 15/05/2017. In support of the claim the complainant did not submit any document proving that he had incurred loss of Rs.2,000/- per day for non-utilizing his Tripper Vehicle.  With these submissions Learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. has prayed for rejecting the complaint claiming it to be a merit less one. 

  On perusal of the complaint, the written objection there too and the evidence adduced by both sides we find that the Complainant had placed his Hydrolic Tripper vehicle(Truck) in the workshop of the O.P. for repairing on 04/04/2016 but the Complainant did not enquire about it until the O.P. on 15/05/2017 issued a letter to the Complainant urging him to accord approval of the estimated amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to execute the repairing work and demanding Rs.1,57,500/- as parking charge.  Though the complainant asserted in his complaint as well as in his examination-in-chief that he had visited the workshop of the O.P. 20 times before 15/05/2017 insisting on repairing his vehicle by the O.P., but complainant did not mention either in his complaint petition or in his evidence-in-chief as to which dates and time he had visited the workshop of the O.P. The Complainant did not adduce any cogent evidence in this regard. We also find that the Complainant did not produce the job card which had been admittedly issued by the O.P. at the time of placing his vehicle in the workshop of the O.P. Had the job card been produced, we could have apprised ourselves regarding the nature and details of work which was supposed to be taken up by the O.P. Withholding of the job card as evidence by the Complainant compels us to draw adverse inference against the Complainant. It is further evident that it is not a case where the Complainant can take the plea of his vehicle becoming multifunctional within period of warranty so as to bring the O.P. under obligation to do the repairing work which would have been his liability. It further reveals from the case record that the Complainant did not make any advance payment to the O.P. for carrying out the repairing work. 

      The Complainant took the plea  that  he had been suffering financial loss on account of his vehicle remaining unattended at the workshop of the O.P. But the Complainants aloofness and his sluggishness about dealing with his vehicle do not indicate that he  was at all bother about his vehicle. The Complainant according to us should have been diligent to get the repairing work done by the O.P. either by giving approval to the estimated cost of repairing charges raised by the O.P. or by making advance payment of it to the O.P. 

  We find the Complainant all throughout been lackadaisical in his approach for getting his vehicle repaired by the O.P.   

  On the aforementioned grounds it is construed that the O.P. can not be held guilty of deficiency of service. 

6. In view of the discussion made above we find and hold that the Complainant has failed to establish his complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P. as we do not find deficiency of service committed by the O.P. to the Complainant. 

The Complainant is directed to arrange for taking his Hydrolic Tripper Vehicle(Truck) TR-03B-1570 back from the workshop of the O.P. within three(03) weeks from the date of judgment failing which he will be liable to pay Rs.500/- per day to the O.P. as parking charge. 

  We accordingly dismiss the Complaint filed by the Complainant. 

There is no order as to costs. 

 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.