Haryana

Karnal

279/2013

Manmohan Kaushik S/o Kali Charan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malwa Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Malwa Automobile Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Zak

31 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.279 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.12.6.2013

                                                          Date of decision:6.04.2015

 

Man Mohan Kaushik son of Shri Kali  Charan near Sant Ravi Dass Mandir, Gharaunda tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.

 

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                                  Vs.

1. Malwa Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.through its General Manager, NH=1, 119/4 KM Stone, GT Road, Karnal.

2.M/s Malwa Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. Gokhle Market, through its Managing Director, Opposite Tees Hazari Court, New Delhi.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

                                      Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                                      Protection Act.

 

Before        Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma……Member.

 

Argued by :-Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant has purchased a TATA Indica V2 GLX bearing registration No. HR-45-A(T)- 1262 in the year 2007 for his personal use as well as Taxi purpose.  In the month of January, 2011 the vehicle in question started giving problem for which the  complainant took the vehicle to OP No.1 vide job card No. 006702 dated 27.1.2011.  The complainant was asked to come on 28.1.2011 but till date the problem was not removed. The complainant approached many a times but  the   possession of the vehicle was not delivered  which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint against  praying that the OP be directed to  hand over the vehicle and to  pay compensation for the harassment caused to him. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.

2.                On  notice the Ops appeared and filed written statement  raising the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint was bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties and that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint.

                   On merits, it was contended that  after parking the vehicle in the workshop of the Ops, the complainant did not come forward to get the same repaired and  the OP no.1 send the bill amounting to Rs.35250/- for 235 days as the same was occupying parking space of the workshop and the security has also been provided to the vehicle.  It was contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and dismissal of the complaint has been sought. Sh.S.K.Malhotra Manager of the  OP No.1 has also tendered his affidavit in support of the contentions made in the written statement.

3.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that  the vehicle of the complainant was not released since he had not paid the charges to the tune of Rs.550/- as shown in Ex.C3 on account of labour/repair charges of the vehicle. The OP has issued letter Ex.C1 vide which a sum of Rs.35250/- has been claimed on account of parking charges.

5.                However, during course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OP has  gracefully agreed not to claim parking charges. Therefore, in view of the circumstances of the case, we direct the OP to release the vehicle on payment of Rs.550/- as claimed in Ex.C3. The complaint stands  disposed off accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

6.04.2015                                                                                                                                             

                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member

 

 

Argued by :-  Sh. N.K.Zak Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.C.J.Wadhwa Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been disposed off. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:

6.04.2015                                                                                                                                            

                                                   (Subhash Goyal)

                                                  President,

                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                      Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

           (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                    ( Member