Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/584

Komal Tomar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harpreet Ford - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 584/2014

Kamal Tomar

A-1/7 SF Type-3 QTRS,

Police Colony,

Pitam Pura

New Delhi-110034

+91-9999-913-828                                                   ..…. Complainant

VERSUS

Harpreet Ford Ltd.

98/2, Najafgarh Road

Moti Nagar Crossing,

New Delhi-110015

Ph.011-45070701-05                                               ….Opposite Party

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant  is that on 07.08.2014  Complainant got his car bearing No. DL 3C BV 2859 after service from OP after paying service charges of Rs.4550/-.  After some times on the same day  the engine of his car  seized and he parked aside the road called  Mr. Sandeep Kumar  of OP.  The Complainant checked the vehicle  and found  that there was no engine oil and lubricant in the engine which led  to the seizer of the engine.  The blunder and ignorance of   service provider endangered  the life of the complainant.  The complainant  telephonically informed Mr. Sandeep Kumar who sent a towing van  which took the car to OP workshop.  On 09.08.2014 OP told the Complainant that the whole engine was required to be repaired which would cost Rs. 50,000/- to 1,50,000/- . OP further told  complainant that engine   seizer  happened because  the chamber of the engine  was  damaged as a result  the  lubricant  was not pumped up for which  complainant himself  was responsible.  It is the case of  complainant   that out of toal  service charges of Rs. 45,500/-  complainant paid  Rs. 1150/- towards  “full vehicle inspection” .  It is  surprising  that the OP during inspection of the vehicle failed to find out chamber heating and committed deficiency  in service.  Therefore, he complainant has  filed the  present complaint with the prayer  that OP should be  directed to repair car engine free of cost  with guarantee  of 1,00,000 km.  and  also  be directed  to pay Rs. 50,000/-  towards harassment  and litigation expenses. 

2.     OP filed reply by taking preliminary objection to the fact that present complaint is  misconceived, false, frivolous,  afterthought, vexatious and is not maintainable.    The complainant  is guilty of his conduct  and can not be permitted to take advantage  of his own wrong .  On merits  OP  admitted  that vehicle in question was serviced  on 07.08.2014  at the millage of 70125 KMs  the subject car  was brought  back to the service station of the OP, on  09.08.2014 when the vehicle had covered  65 kms after delivery of the car from the service center.  OP pleaded that after taking the delivery ,  on 07.08.2014  the complainant involved the vehicle in  and accident in which the chamber was damaged alongwith the engine  oil sump/oil chamber.  The underbody damage was so  severe that the oil chamber got punctured and  the whole oil engine leaked  out causing  engine to seize .  When the  car was received back on 09.04.2014 the technicians put  put down his note on the inspection sheet dated 09.08.2014 detailing  the extent of the damage caused to the under body   and the oil chamber . It is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed.  

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint.  On the other hand Mr. A. Mathew Executive Director filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement.  Both parties also filed its respective written submission. 

4.     We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.     The controversy in the present case is that as to whether  complainant is entitled to the claim or not. Admittedly the vehicle in question  had gone to the service station of OP  for regular  service on 07.08.2014. It is also admitted that the vehicle was again taken to the  service station of OP on 09.08.2014 after the engine got seized .  The issue  in the present case is as to whether the engine  got seized due to negligence of OP or due to accidental hit of chamber which led to seizer of engine.  The worksheet  of OP relating to  07.08.2014 and 09.08.2014  would spill the beans because  it is now the well settled  law that a man and lies but documents cannot. The work repair order dated 07.08.2014 clearly indicates that there was chamber heating, if this was so on 07.08.2014  then why  OP, who had charged complainant  separately for full inspection of the vehicle, could not apprise complainant of this serious defect nor did make  so could have efforts  to set right  the chamber so that the engine oil is properly pumped for driving of the vehicle .  The plea of the  OP  that it came to know about the chamber heating  only on 09.08.2014  which could have happened   due to  accident after the vehicle  was delivered to the complainant on 07.08.2014 is  totally false  plea to thwart the claim . Both service orders dated 07.08.2014 and  09.08.2014 contradict the plea of the OP. The deficiency  in service committed by OP is writ large.    

6.     Keeping in view the  overall  circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the ends of the justice would be met if  we award a sum of               Rs. 1,50,000/-  towards repair of the vehicle and  compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

 

Announced this____25TJ__ day of __April _____ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                     

PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER