Haryana

StateCommission

RP/92/2015

Ram Dia Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahabalaji Auto Service (P) Limited - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No:   92 of 2015

Date of Institution:       03.12.2015

Date of Decision :        07.01.2016

 

Ram Dia Soni, aged 45 years s/o Sh. B.R. Soni, Resident of House No.1330, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                      Petitioner/Complainant

Versus

 

Mahabalaji Auto Service (P) Limited, NH-1/159, KM Stone, GT Road, Pipli, Kurukshetra-136118 through its Managing Director/General Manager/Authorised signatory.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Jatin Sahrawat, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Sumit Gupta, Advocate, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 30^th November, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’), vide which two applications, that is, one filed by complainant/petitioner for release of vehicle and another filed by opposite party/respondent, for amendment of written reply, were disposed of.

2.      Ram Dia-complainant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased car bearing Registration No.HR-99QPT-3048 (Temporary), Indigo Manza make, vide invoice dated 9^th January, 2014. The car was insured with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’). The car was damaged in an accident on March 1^st, 2015. On being contacted, Mahabalaji Auto Service Private Limited-Opposite Party, assured that it was authorized by the Insurance Company to repair the vehicles under cash less scheme. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the car. The car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party. The opposite party vide letter dated 16^th April, 2015 informed the complainant that the car was ready for delivery. He visited the opposite party on April 17^th, 2015 and found that there were deficiencies in the car like Air Conditioner, unpleasant sound, huge vibration, starting problem etcetera.  As per assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant again visited the workshop on April 27^th, 2015 for taking delivery of the car but the opposite party raised demand of bill worth Rs.1,64,320/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,64,320/- but the opposite party issued back dated invoice dated March 31^st, 2015. However, after paying the bill, it was found that the car was not repaired properly as there was problem in the engine. On being asked, the mechanics of the opposite party refused to rectify the defects. The complainant refused to take delivery of the car. A legal notice dated 17^th June, 2015 was served upon the opposite party through registered post as well as e-mail on June 18^th, 2015 but to no avail.

3.      The opposite party filed written reply denying the averments made in the complaint. It denied of having given any assurance for cashless facility to the complainant.  The complainant did not pay the bill for repair charges and did not take the delivery of the car despite repeated requests. He was also informed vide letters dated 11.04.2015 and 06.05.2015 that parking charges of Rs.100/- per day will be charged for not taking delivery of the car besides repair charges. During April 2015, the complainant offered to make payment and take delivery, however asked for back dated invoice. Complainant collected invoice but did not make payment, accordingly the invoice was cancelled.  

4.      During the course of hearing, the complainant moved an application for release of vehicle and opposite party filed application for filing amended written reply.

5.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum disposed of both the applications. The relevant parts of the impugned order are as under:-

“7.     After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that it was some typographical/clerical mistake that the amount of Rs.20,100/- was mentioned, whereas the actual amount due is stated to be Rs.1,69,320/-. Even, in the ‘cancelled tax invoice’ issued by the OP the amount of Rs.1,64,320/- and in other invoice the amount has been mentioned as Rs.4999/-. The complainant wanted to take the advantage of payment method against which cash has been mentioned. It is to be seen that in case cash payment was made by the complainant to the OP, he should have placed on record some receipt in this regard. In any case, it is a matter of evidence which shall be seen at the time of decision on merit. In such circumstances, the application stands allowed and the OP is allowed to amend the written statement. Amended written statement is already on the record.”

“10.   After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the Op cannot be directed to deliver the vehicle in question until or unless the due amount is paid by the complainant. So, in such circumstances, the application for making direction to the OP to deliver the vehicle in question is rejected. First of all, the complainant should make the payment of repair charges to the OP and only thereafter such like direction can be made by this Forum.”

 

    Hence this revision.

6.      The plea of the petitioner/complainant is that the opposite party had issued tax invoice dated 31^st March, 2015 where payment method has been mentioned as cash. Therefore, the amount would be deemed to have been paid. The complainant has not been able to produce any receipt for the payment made. Thus, the payment being disputed fact has to be proved before the District Forum. Therefore, any observation made by this Commission, at this stage, may adversely affect any of the parties.

7.      Taking into consideration the other part regarding amendment in the written reply, the reply was filed on October 19^th, 2015 and opposite party stating that due to typographical mistake wrong figures have been mentioned in the reply, sought amendment in the reply. The application was filed on October 23^rd, 2015, that is, earliest possible time without any loss. Not permitting the opposite party to amend the reply, would be foreclosing its defence. Therefore, if the District Forum allowed the amendment of reply when the case was at initial stage, this Commission feels that the District Forum does not appear to have committed any illegality in allowing the application for amendment.

8.      In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed.

 

Announced 07.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL