Haryana

StateCommission

A/182/2015

ANKUR JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGMOHAN MOTORS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BY POST

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :    182 of  2015

Date of Institution  :      10.02.2015   

Date of Decision    :      15.10.2015 

  

Ankur Jain s/o Sh. Shyam Lal Jain, Resident of H.No.180/29, Near Shiv Shiksha Sadan School, Dev Nagar, Sonipat.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

M/s Jagmohan Motors Limited, Delhi Road, Sonipat, through its Manager.

                                                                   Respondent-Opposite Party

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

For the Parties:  None for appellant.

                             Shri A.K. Antil, Advocate for respondent.

           

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated January 2^nd, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’), seeking a substantial enhancement of the relief granted.

2.      On May 18^th, 2012, Ankur-Complainant-appellant brought his car Maruti-800, bearing registration No.DL-8CB-7805 at M/s Jag Mohan Motors Limited-respondent, for repairs. Accordingly, the car was repaired and a bill of Rs.33,019/-, that is, Rs.18,469/- for body repairing and Rs.14,550/- for mechanical work was prepared by the opposite party. However, the complainant did not pay the bill alleging it excessive and did not take the delivery of the car.

3.      He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the allegation that the respondent removed the Air Conditioner of the car due to which he did not take the car back.

4.      The respondent contested the complaint averring that the car of the complainant was of 1996 Model, the fitness validity of which was upto June 20^th, 2012. The complainant was advised not to get the car repaired being very old but he did not agree. Accordingly, the car was repaired at the cost of Rs.33,019/-, that is, Rs.18,469/- for body repairing and Rs.14,550/- for mechanical work for which bill was prepared. The complainant raised allegation of excess bill and did not take delivery of the car, so the car is still parked in the workshop of the  opposite party and he is liable to pay the parking charges also. So far as the allegation of the complainant with respect to removal of the A.C., the manufacturing company did not provide A.C. facility, so the question of removing the same from the car did not arise. There is no evidence that A.C. was fitted in the car before complainant gave it for repairs.

5.      After perusing the evidence led by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint as under:-

“………Accordingly, we hereby direct the complainant to make 50% payment of Rs.33019/- to the respondent and the respondent is also directed to accept 50% of Rs.33019/- from the complainant and to deliver him the vehicle in working condition as and when he made the above said payment.”

6.      This appeal was received by post. Notice of the appeal was issued to the appellant-complainant and the respondent as well. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice being served four times.

7.      The plea taken in the grounds of appeal is that the respondent be directed to install the A.C. in the car and to pay compensation for not delivering the car till date.

8.      Having taken into consideration facts of the case and the evidence led by the complainant, this Commission is of the view that the appellant-complainant has been adequately compensated by asking to pay only 50% of repair bill and no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. There is nothing on the record to show that the A.C. was installed.

9.      The appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 15.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL