Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/12

R.N. Azad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jun 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:07.01.2014

Complaint Case. No.12/14                                             Date of order:09.06.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Sh.R.N.Azad S/o Late Sh. KareLalR/o H.No.108ArunodayaApartment,VikasPuri, Delhi-18.

Complainant

 

VERSUS

M/s HimgiriCars Pvt. Ltd., C-1 Udyog Nagar,IndustrialArea, Peeragarhi,NewDelhi -110041.

Oppositeparty

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Sh. R. N. Azad named above here in the complainant has filed the                      present consumer complaint  under  section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to M/s Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. here in after  in short  referred as the opposite party  to refund  Rs. 11,845/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party  for service  and parts charges,  Rs. 26,00/- paid by the complainant  as crane service charges, Rs. 26,000 paid by the complainant  for repair /fresh service of his car to M/s Deep Hyundai,  Rs. 4,000/-  spent by the complainant  on public transport, Rs. 11,000/- of litigation  expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical  agony suffered by the complainant on account of  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainanton 31.08.2013 delivered  his  car bearing registration no. DL8CS7944 to the opposite party for routine service.  The opposite no. 1 charged Rs. 11,845/- for routine service,  replacement of parts including flushing  gear oil and filling fresh oil.  The complainant soon after the service of his car telephonically  complained that he was  not satisfied with the service of the car as performance of the car was not good even after service and was running  as it was prior to the service by the opposite party.   He requested executive of the opposite party for again proper checking  of the car and do the needful.  But the executive of the opposite party flatly refused  to again check the car.   Even washing  and cleaning of the car had not been done by the employees of the opposite party despite the opposite party charged for  dry-cleaning .

            That the complainant received two letter dated 13.09.2013from Sh. Nafees Ahmed, Service Manager of the opposite party regretting  inconvenience  caused  to complainant during his last visit  and for  poor cleaning of the car.

            That the complainant   on 15.10.2013 had gone to Airport to see-offhis daughter- in-law.  But while returning the car suddenly stopped with jerk due to breakdown in middle of the road at Airport Terminal -3.  The complainant wasluckily saved.  The complainant had to take service of crane  for lifting  car from M/s Mukesh& Ganga Crane Services, Maya Puri, New Delhi and paid                    Rs. 14,00/-. The complainant telephonically requested at the office of the opposite party to take car for repair.  But the executive of the opposite party rudely refused and told that the car would not be repairedfree of cost.  On 17.10.2013 the complainant  took crane  service from M/sSita   Towing    Services, Gurgaon for carrying the car from his house to a workshop  M/s  Deep  Hyundai, Peeragarhi and paid a sum of Rs. 12,00/-.

            That during  repair/service of the car at M/s Deep Hyundai it revealed that  car oil was not available  in the car that is  why gear  box  seized.  The complainant  wasshocked to know the fact as employees of the opposite  party  had claimed that at the time  of service of the car every part of car was checked  and installed the  required new parts/lubricants.The complainant had to pay  Rs.26,000/- to M.s Deep Hyundai for repair of service of the car. 

            That the complainant was working as S.P CBI and presently is working  asPairavi  Officer in Central Bureau of Investigation. He has to attend  various courts and there was also  security apprehension for him.  Hence it is unsafe for the  complainant  to use public transport .  But  because of  the fault  in  the car due to improper service  at workshop  of the opposite party  he had to use public transport many times   during  period  of repair of his car. 

            That  in  view  of the above fact it is clear that the complainant  had unnecessarily  suffered and undergone  extreme mental  and physical  agony  and financial loss due to  improper  service  of the car  of the complainant  at the workshop  of the opposite party.  Therefore,  the complainant  sent a  legal   notice to the opposite  party.  But the opposite party did not  payheed to the request   of the complainant.  Hence the present complaint for directions  to refund  Rs. 11,845/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party  for service  and parts charges,  Rs. 26,00/- paid by the complainant  as crane service charges, Rs. 26,000 paid by the complainant  for repair /fresh service of his car to M/s Deep Hyundai,  Rs. 4,000/-  paid by the complainant on public transport, Rs. 11,000/- of litigation  expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical  agony suffered by the complainant on account of  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

            After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply while contesting the complaint and raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false and  frivolous and has been filed just to harm  and tarnish  image  of the opposite party, there is no cause  of action and the complainant is himself  a wrong doer, therefore,  he cannot take benefit  of his own  wrongs.

            On merits the opposite party admitted that on 31.08.2013 the  complainant  delivered  his car  no. DL8CS7944 at  workshop of the opposite party for routine check -up and service and the same was carried out by efficient  technical persons to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  But  asserted that the  complainant  was  charged with due  and genuine  amount.  There is no unfair  trade practice  or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  The  complainantjust after service did not make any complaint to the opposite party.  He was satisfied with the service.   Therefore, the executive of the opposite party  did not  refuse  for re-checking and re-service.  The complainant had complained  only regarding poor  washing and cleaning  of the car on telephone to the manager of the opposite party. Therefore on 13.09.2013 letters were written to the complainant.  The car was not damaged due to improper service at the workshop of the opposite party. The car has already covered approximately 2000 kilometers at the time  of breakdown after service by the opposite party and  is not possible  that a vehicle  can cover  such a long distance  without  gear  oil.  All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for dismissal for the complaint.

            The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of opposite party controverting  stand of the opposite party  and reiteratedhis  stand taken in the complaint. He once again prayed the directions.

            When Sh. R.N. Azad  complainant  was asked  to lead evidence  by way of  affidavit  he  tendered his affidavit  narrating  facts  of the   complaint.  The complainant  also relied upon Exhibit  C-1 registration certificate of the car  bearing no.DL8CS7944, ExhibitC-2 driving license of the complainant bearing no. DL 0419880125802, Exhibit C-3  credit  invoice  dated 31.08.2013, Exhibit C-4 credit invoice dated 31.08.2013, Exhibit C-5 and Exhibit C-6  letters dated 13.09.2013 written  by  Service Manager of the opposite party to the  complainant, Exhibit C-7 bill dated 15.10.2013, Exhibit C-8 bill dated 17.10.2013 , Exhibit C-9 retail invoice /cash  memo  dated 23.10.2013  and Exhibit C-10legal notice  dated 6.11.2013.

            When the opposite party was asked to lead evidence by way of  affidavit , theopposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. B.K.  SharmaDGM  narrating  facts of the reply .

             Both the parties have also filed written submissions in support of their respective contentions.

            We have heard the complainant in person and  learnedcounsel for the opposite party and have gone through the material available on record carefully and thoroughly. 

After  having  heard  both the sides  and  going through the affidavits  of the parties as well as documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-10 it is common case of the parties that the complainant  on 31.08.2013 delivered  his car no. DL8CS7944 at the workshop of the opposite party for routine check- up and service.   The opposite party provided the service. 

Whereas the case of complainant is that he was not satisfied with the service   and he made complaint to the officials of the opposite party on phone.  Therefore,  Service Manager of the  opposite party wrote  to two letters  Exhibit C-5  and C-6  both dated 13.09.2013 regretting inconvenience  to the complainant and providing washing  and cleaning.  On 15.10.2013 the car stopped in middle of road due to break down.  The car was taken to the M/s Deep Hyundai for repairs and service as the employee  of the opposite party  refuse to repair  car without charges.

The case of the complainant further is that the staff of the M/s Deep Hyundai in Exhibit C-9 retail invoice and cash memo as specifically  written “ gear oil N/A  in vehicle that is why gear box seize”.  The case of the complainant  is also that despite the fact the opposite party  charged for  draining  the old engine  oil and re-filling  the new engine oil did not drain the old  engine oil and refill the new engine oil ,therefore, the car  was stopped in middle of the road due to breakdown  and  the car  seized and he had to spent huge amount in transporting  the car tothe M/s Deep Hyundai and repair of the car.

Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the car wasserviced by technical  staffof the opposite party. They drained the old engine oil and refilled new engine oil.  The complainant was satisfied  withthe service.  There was no unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the  part of the opposite party.

The complainant in support of his case has relied upon his   affidavit only.Which is rebuttedby the affidavit of Sh. D.K. Sharma, DGMwhere asExhibit  C-9retail invoice/cash  memo is not of any  help  of  the complainant.Whereinfollowing  iswritten -

“ Gear oil N/A in vehicle  that is why gear box  seized”

            There is nothing on the record to show that the opposite party did not drained old engine oil and re-fill new engine oil on 31.08.2013 at the time of the routine check-up and service of the car.  The car was driven by the complainant about 2000 kilometerfrom 31.08.13 to 15.10.2013 after service of thecar on 31.08.2013 till breakdown of 15.10.2013.  Contention  of the  learned counsel  for the  opposite party  is that  without  engine oil  the car could not  run about 2000 kilometers from 31.08.2013 to 15.10.2013. The complainant has failed to show how a car can cover 2000 kilometers without engine oil.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to show that the  opposite party did not  drain  old  engine oil and re-fill  new engine oil at the time of  service  on 31.08.2013.  Hence, there is no unfair trade practice   and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

            In the light of above discussion and observations the complainantfailed  the prove   any unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the part of the

opposite party .  Therefore,   there is no merit in the complaint.  The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

            Order pronounced on :09.06.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                              ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT