DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No | : | 218 OF 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 23.01.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 12.12.2011 |
Sh. Lalit Ahuja son of Sh Ram Chander Ahuja resident of House No.310, Green Valley near State Bank of Patiala, Village Sarangpur, U.T., Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Proprietor Gurcharan Autos, 96, New Motor Market, Near Vishwakarma Mandir, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA PRESIDING MEMBER SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. R.S. Raj, Advocate for the complainant along with the complainant. Sh. Vivek Mohan, Advocate proxy for the OP. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short), on the grounds that the complainant being a physically handicapped having lost his right leg in a road accident wanted to buy a car for himself, which could be driven with his type of physical ability though having visited various Auto Dealers could not get any vehicle manufactured by any company as per his personal requirements. At the same time, he explored the possibility of an alternative, so that he could be able to drive the normal vehicle by controlling the accelerator as well as the brake with his hands instead of his right foot. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that OP can provide such provision in a normal car. On contacting the OP, the complainant was assured that he can provide such facility as he has fitted the same in so many cars and the same were running to the satisfaction of their owners. Convinced of the assurances of the OP, the complainant purchased a brand new Alto Car bearing Regd. No.CH01-AA-2417 in the name of his wife. The complainant also had a valid driving license no.CH01/2009/0017518 valid up to 13.12.2026. The copy of the same are annexed as Annexures C-1 and C-2. It is further stated that on 20.12.2009 at about 11 P.M., OP after finishing his shop work came to the residence of the complainant and fitted the alleged device in the car of the complainant. The complainant had a trial of the vehicle and found that he can very comfortably drive the car with the help of the device without using his right leg and foot. OP charged a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant. However, no bill or receipt for the sum was received. The complainant claims that being over enthusiastic did not insist for the same. The device fitted by OP worked smoothly for about five months and thereafter, it started giving trouble. The main defect with the device is that the control wire connected with it has started breaking time and again. The OP has since replaced the same for as many as six times and charged Rs.100/- each time from the complainant but still the functioning is not satisfactory. That on two different occasions, the complainant visited Anandpur Sahib and Sangrur with his family and due to the untimely breakage of wire had to suffer and could only drive the vehicle with great difficulty and reach home. The complainant requested the OP to rectify the defect in the device on which the OP is alleged to have abused and insulted the complainant. The complainant had also served the OP with a legal notice dated 7.4.2011 and the same was replied by vide letter dated 11.4.2011. The complaint is also supported by an additional affidavits of Mrs. Jagriti wife of the complainant and of one Sh. Rahul Singh son of Sh. R. P Singh, the neighbourer of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP seek relief of refund of Rs.6,000/- along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2009 and further seeks a compensation of Rs.1 Lac for causing mental agony and physical harassment. On notice, OP appeared and contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the car in question in which the complainant had got the device installed is in the name of his wife and hence, in the present case, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is also settled that the complainant who as per his admission is handicapped, hence, he does not carry a valid driving license necessary for driving the said car. It is further mentioned that the device in question was got installed by the complainant himself, which is not permitted by any authorized manufacturer of vehicle and the same is wrongful act and conduct on the part of the complainant. It is also mentioned that the present complaint cannot be decided under the summary jurisdiction of this Forum. On merits, the OP has denied the contents of Para No.1 for want of knowledge. However, in reply to Para No.2 of the complaint, state that as the complainant himself was not able to locate a manufacturer which could provide a device for accelerator control system and break operation with hands and having got installed the alleged device on his own which is not permitted by any authorized vehicle manufacturer, has faulted with the mechanism. In Para No.4 of his reply, OP has specifically mentioned that he is running an auto shop for repair works of motor vehicles and has no work and equipments for installing such kind of devices. It is also denied that the complainant ever visited him for installation of the alleged device because the same would have required welding work for which the OP has no facility. Though OP has admitted that on 1.4.2011, the complainant had visited his premises for the replacement of accelerator wire connected with the alleged device and the device in question already existed in the car. It is further mentioned that OP advised the complainant not to use the said arrangement as the accelerator wire is not meant to be used for such purpose. At this, the complainant instead of realizing his mistake started abusing OP in the presence of local market and threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant in order to harass the OP has filed the present complaint. The OP has admitted to have charged only the money for the change of accelerator wire, which was broken but denied to have installed the device in question in the car of the complainant. Hence, on the aforesaid grounds, the OP pray for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. Parties led their respective evidences. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:- (i) In the present complaint, the complainant has clearly stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the OP for installing a device so that he was able to drive the normal car which was in the name of his wife with his kind of physical ability. The complainant has also categorically stated that on the first instance when he used the said car with the help of installed device, he found it to be satisfactory as per his desire. It is also categorically stated in his complaint in Para No.7 that the said device comfortably worked for a period of five months and thereafter, it started giving trouble. The complainant had to repeatedly replace the accidental wire, which started breaking again and again and had to shell out Rs.100/- each time. The complainant further states that on two different occasions while on an out of station visit had suffered difficulty due to the breakage of accelerator wire. (ii) The present complaint of the complainant is duly supported by his affidavit and also the affidavits of his wife Smt. Jagriti and a neighbourer namely Sh. Rahul Singh son of Sh. R. P. Singh. From these two additional affidavits, it is revealed that the OP received Rs.6,000/- and had installed the said device in the car of the complainant. (iii) It is also revealed from the version of the OP that on the last occasion when the complainant went to him for replacement of the broken accelerator wire, there was a heated exchange between them in full view of the motor market as mentioned by the OP in Para No.5 at Page No.3 of his reply. It establishes the fact that the complainant and OP were known to each other and it was not the first instance when the complainant had visited him. The OP has also failed to bring any cogent evidence to deny the allegations of the complainant and his knowledge about the type of equipment and how actually it could be installed shows about the level of his knowledge of such devices. Hence, the allegations of the complainant hold ground in present circumstances. (iv) As the complainant has failed in his allegations to prove that the OP had assured him about the lift of the said device and also about the guarantee or warranty if the said device fails to give the desired results. At the same time, the complainant’s own admission about the satisfactory working of device for a continuous period of five months fails him to qualify for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP on this count. In the light of the above observations, the present complaint succeeds and we direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 20.12.2009, till it is actually paid, along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, OP shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the sum of Rs.6,000/- except the costs of litigation. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 12th December, 2011. (MADHU MUTNEJA) PRESIDING MEMBER (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER | , | | 
