BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.456 of 2016

Date of Instt. 08.11.2016

Date of Decision: 03.01.2018

Gurvinder Singh son of S. Narinder Singh, resident of 326, Guru Amar Dass Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Happy Prop. State Motors, Opposite BBC Heart Care Hospital, Link Road, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Anil Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. HS Sandhu, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is owner of Tata Safari make 2007 bearing registration No.PB-08-BA-0555. On 16.04.2015, the aforesaid vehicle was met an accident and later on, the matter in regard to accident was compromised between the parties on 17.04.2015 and thereafter, the complainant has given his Tata Safari for repair to the workshop on 18.04.2015 and the complainant purchased the spare parts as required by the OP and the payment of the above said spare part was made by the complainant in the presence of Balraj Singh son of Sh. Bawa Singh, resident of 185, Raja Garden, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. The complainant had paid Rs.35,000/-, on 18.04.2015 for repairing his vehicle in the presence of Balraj Singh son of Sh. Bawa Singh.

2. That if the complainant gave his Tata Safari on rent and a person, who has taken the vehicle has to pay Rs.1500/- per day and now more than one and half year has been passed but the OP has not delivered the vehicle to the complainant and nor the OP has repaired the same. The complainant's wife namely Amandeep Kaur is suffering from Cancer and the complainant had to take her to Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar for treatment and the complainant was compelled to hire a taxi and had to pay Rs.2000/- per day. The conversation regarding repair of the vehicle is recorded in the CD, original CD is attached with this complaint. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.7,20,000/- as the OP kept the vehicle illegally, forcibly by not delivering the possession and key of the car to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP a number of times and requested the OP to handover the car in good condition, but the OP has paid no response to the genuine request of the complainant. So, it is clear cut deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP, whereby the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, loss of finance and time, for which the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- besides the refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,20,000/- as a loss caused to the complainant and further the complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly, OP i.e. Happy appeared through his counsel and filed a written reply, whereby contested the complaint and categorically stated that respondent is not the proprietor of the State Motors i.e. OP and further alleged that the OP has no dealing with the complainant in any way. The Safari Car in question was never handed over to the OP by the complainant. It is further alleged that the OP did not do any deficiency in service and never harass the complainant in any way. He has never dealt with the complainant in the matter of Safari in question and further alleged that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant be put a strict proof that the OP is the owner/proprietor of the concerned State Motors, which he has been claiming in his complaint. The matter must be within the owner/proprietor of State Motor and the complainant, whereas the OP has no concern/connection with the same. On merits, all the averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C14 and then produced on the file affidavit of Balraj Singh S/o Bawa Singh as Ex.CB and also produced a C. D. as Ex.C15, containing the call recording alleged by the complainant, with him by the OP and then closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand, the OP namely Happy Son of Jaswant Singh tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-B alongwith some documents Ex.OP/7 to Ex.OP/12 and during the proceeding of the evidence of the OP, one Pardeep Singh S/o Jaswant Singh appeared through his counsel Sh. Harminder Singh Sandhu, Adv and tendered into evidence the affidavit of the said Pardeep Singh as Ex.OP/A and some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/6 and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. From the over all circumstances as elaborated in the complaint as well as in the written reply, itself reveals that the complainant alleged that he has handed over his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-BA-0555, for repairing purpose and also purchased the spare parts and handed over the same to the OP in the presence of one Balraj Singh on 18.04.2015, but despite elapse of one and half year, the OP miserably failed to deliver the repaired vehicle to the complainant, whereby the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.7,20,000/- and also alleged that if he rented out the said vehicle, then he can easily earned Rs.1500/- per day and even the complainant has to pay taxi charges for going to Amritsar for checking of his wife Amandeep Kaur and as such, alleged that he is entitled for loss of Rs.7,20,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as well as litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

8. No doubt, the OP namely Happy pleaded by the complainant, filed a written reply, whereby categorically denied that he is not proprietor/owner of the State Motors i.e. OP and also categorically denied that the Safari Car was never handed over to the OP namely Happy and nor he has any concern with the State Motors and as such, he prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed and in order to prove the factum as elaborated in his written reply, the OP namely Happy brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.OP/B, whereby again categorically stated that he is not the owner of the OP State Motors rather one Pardeep Singh is running car repairing/Denting Painting Business under the name and style of State Motors at G.T. Road, Opp. BBC Heart Care Hospital, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar and then the said Pardeep Singh also appeared in this complaint through his counsel and filed his affidavit Ex.OPA, whereby alleged that Gurwinder Singh gave his Tata Safari, White Colour bearing No.PB-08-BA-0555 in May 2015 for repair and the whole labour and other charges was fixed as Rs.40,000/-. It was settled that all the spare parts would be purchased and given by Gurwinder Singh for whole repair. Gurwinder Singh is a head strong and influential person and did not fulfill his promise and never supplied the parts as per his promise. That enough denting painting and other repair work were done and minor parts were installed as per the assurance of Gurwinder Singh that he would pay the amount and the repairs would be made and the car should be made intact as per his directions. Despite demands and repeated requests, the Gurwinder Singh never paid the amount and never gave the parts as required for completing denting painting and repair work of Car. One complaint was moved to PS Division No.4, Jalandhar by Gurwinder Singh against Pardeep Singh in the year 2016, Dairy No.115BH dated 16.01.2016 and it was dealt with by ASI Ajinder Singh and there Gurwinder Singh agreed that the required spare parts, doors, bumpers etc. which are required for fitting would be supplied by him as per his promise very soon and the car should be delivered within 15 days after the supply of parts, but the parts were never supplied by Gurwinder Singh as per his promise in the Police Station and did not come back after that to collect the car, then on 28.09.2016, a phone was received from PS Division No.4 by Pardeep Singh and ASI Ajinder Singh informed that another complaint filed by Gurwinder Singh, then Pardeep Singh appeared in Police Station alongwith Happy and gave his statement that unless and until the parts required for denting painting and his settled amount of Rs.40,000/- is paid by Gurwinder Singh the car cannot be repaired and also told that it was settled in the previous complaint filed by Gurwinder Singh. In the second complaint, it was again agreed by Gurwinder Singh that the required spare parts, doors, bumpers etc. which are required for fitting would be supplied by him as per his promise upto 28.09.2016 and the car should be delivered upto 05.10.2016, but it was never done as usual by the Gurwinder Singh and the car stood there and thereafter, Gurwinder Singh threatened the Pardeep Singh of dire consequences and done to death and running his name in the locality market by spreading rumors that they are Thugs and threatened to affect their business, then Pardeep Singh gave a complaint to Police Commissioner on 18.10.2016, which was marked to P.S. Division No.4, Jalandhar, vide dairy No.205BH dated 21.10.2016, but despite lapse of many months, no action has been taken against the Gurwinder Singh and then a complaint under Section 420, 506 IPC for registration of FIR and for taking legal action as per law under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C was filed by Pardeep Singh against Gurwinder Singh, which is pending in the Court of Smt. Meenakshi Mahajan, JMIC Jalandhar for 21.03.2017, in that complaint, the evidence of Pardeep Singh has been recorded. In support of above submissions, the said Pardeep Singh also brought on the file a copy of complaint made against the complainant Gurwinder Singh is Ex.OP/1 and petition under Section 156(3) filed in the Court and its copy is Ex.OP/6.

9. It is clear that the matter in issue is already pending before the police as well as before Criminal Court i.e. the Court of Smt. Meenakshi Mahajan, JMIC Jalandhar, but these factum have been concealed by the complainant very cleverly, despite knowledge and as such, we came to conclusion that the complainant has miserable failed to establish on the file that the OP namely Happy is the proprietor of the State Motors and further, if the car was handed over to OP namely Happy, then the Happy must had issued a receipt in regard to getting a vehicle for repair, was to be issued by the Happy, but the receipt produced on the file by the complainant as Ex.C8 is without vehicle number, without the name of the proprietor and without the signature of the proprietor. No doubt, the counsel for the complainant has given much stress on the call recording in the C. D. Ex.C-10 and its translation version brought on the file Ex.C-15, but it is not established on the file, who is talking with the complainant in the said mobile phone, it is recorded in the CD Ex.C-10. So, it is clear that the complainant has never handed over the vehicle to the Happy, who is impleaded as an OP in this complaint, if so then, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation, cost and litigation expenses from the said Happy.

10. Further more, in this case, new story has been brought on the record by one Pardeep Singh, claiming himself to be owner of the said State Motor and categorically alleged that there is already a criminal dispute is pending before the Court of Smt. Meenakshi Mahajan, JMIC Jalandhar in regard to issue in dispute. So, when the matter is already subjudice before the Criminal Court, then this complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

03.01.2018 Member President