Punjab

Sangrur

CC/451/2016

Parshotam Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jain Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                  

                                                                  Complaint no. 451                                                                                         

                                                                   Instituted on:   14.07.2016                                                                                

                                                                   Decided on:    08.12.2016

 

Parshotam Lal aged about 57 years son of Dev Raj resident of  Barnala Road, Gali No.3 , Dhuri Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

Jain Autos Opposite Gaushala, M.K. Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its proprietor Vipan Kumar.

                                              ….Opposite party.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT   :                   Shri Mahesh Satija Advocate.                      

 

FOR THE  OPP. PARTY                :            Shri Yashvir Gupta, Advocate

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Parshotam Lal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he has been visiting the  opposite party  to repair  his  scooter model 2008 Aviator several times during the period w.e.f. 17.02.2015 to 18.03.2016 and  OP charged huge amount  and issued job cards to the complainant.  Apart from it an amount of Rs.6400/-  was also charged from the complainant  but no receipt was issued.  On every time  the OP assured that  there will be no such engine problem in future but all in vain.  Now,  the vehicle of the complainant  was detained by the OP under  the pretext  of an illegal demand of Rs.10,000/-  on account of service charges.  The OP also misbehaved with the complainant. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OP be directed to refund  the entire amount of Rs.20844/-  which is illegal one received from the complainant and not to raise any illegal demand of Rs.10,000/- as service charges,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35000/- as compensation   on account of deficiency in service,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder and concealment of material facts have been taken up.  On merits, it is submitted that complainant had several times visited the workshop of OP for repair of his vehicle.  It is denied that the OP had ever  charged any huge amount towards  the repairs of the vehicle in question.  The vehicle was got serviced after  a distance of 9043 kilometers from 31.03.2015 to 25.09.2015 as such there was  abnormal wear and tear of the vehicle of the complainant.  It is further submitted that the complainant  knowingly mislead the court by mentioning 1043km  as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is stated that  on every service/ repair the OP issued bills to the complainant as such the receipt of Rs.6400/- is denied in absence of bills.  It is incorrect  that  every time , the complainant  had made complaint of engine problem.  It is submitted that the job cards issued to the complainant by OP clearly shows  that each and every time  complainant had  reported different problem in his vehicle.  It is denied that the  vehicle of the complainant had ever been detained by OP under the pretext of any illegal demand for service charge for Rs.10,000/-  to release his vehicle.  It is submitted that in reply to the legal notice , the OP had replied  that he is willing to deliver the vehicle of the complainant  but the complainant himself  did not come present for taking the delivery of his vehicle. It is respectfully submitted that every time when the complainant  visited the premises of the OP he was given best of the service.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-19 and closed evidence.  

4.             After perusal of the documents placed on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the OP has stated in its reply that  neither they  detained  the vehicle of the complainant nor demanded  an amount of Rs.10,000/- as service charge rather they have specifically stated in reply to the legal notice  which is Ex.OP-12 on record that  they  have already requested the complainant to take his scooter after repair free of charge. This fact  has been admitted by the complainant in para  3 ( e) of the complaint  that  in reply to the legal notice  the OP has stated that  he is ready to deliver  the vehicle free of cost but the complainant  has stated that   it is  an unfair trade practice and  gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP but we are unable to understand  that if the OP is ready to deliver the vehicle in question after repair free of charge then how there is  unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the complainant has also failed to prove this fact by adducing any documentary evidence on record.

5.             In view of the above discussion,  we find no merit in the present complaint and as such the same is dismissed. However, the OP is directed to handover the scooter in question to the complainant in running condition free of charge whenever he will come  to collect the same.  Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   

                Announced

                December 8, 2016

 

 

 

      ( Sarita Garg)                                    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                           

Member                                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-