Date of Filing: 10.09.2018
Date of Judgment: 06.05.2022
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President
This complaint is filed by the complainant Smt. Swati Roy under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party namely Monaco Sales Pvt. Ltd alleging deficiency in service on its part.
Case of the complainant in short is that the opposite party is carrying its business of repairing workshop of vehicle of Maruti Suzuki as its authorized service centre .Complainant is the owner of four wheeler vehicle of Model “Wagon R LXI (silver).” Complainant took the vehicle to the O.P for better service and mileage who on inspection estimated the cost of the service Rs 50000/- on 06.01.2018 and assured of delivery within 10-15 days. Complainant was handed over the vehicle by the O.P on 20.02.2018 with the assurance that the vehicle will not have any problem and it will ply on the road without any hazard. However she had to pay Rs 60000/- instead of Rs 50000/-. But the complainant again faced the problem and after 15 days, she again had to take the vehicle to the other authorised service centre of the company where on checking by an experienced mechanic, he reported that no service has been done to address the Primary problems of the vehicle and few parts of the vehicle have actually been changed. On being complained to the O.P about the same, O.P claimed that they have done all the required services more or less 50% of the parts of the said vehicle. Service centre charged Rs 28000/- for painting and Rs 4000/- for denting though they simply painted the said vehicle instead of painting and polishing. After taking delivery of the car from the O.P service centre, Complainant has been facing problem/ hazard to ply the vehicle, thus she lodged complaint before the Consumer Grievance Cell and thereafter has filed this case praying for directing the O.P to pay a sum of Rs 60000/- paid to O.P towards repairing and further a sum of Rs 35000/-towards reimbursement of further repairing, compensation of Rs 500000/- and Rs 50000/- as litigation cost.
Complainant has filed with the complaint, Job Card Retails dated 31.12.17, 18.01.18, 13.02.18, Cash memo and invoice dated 13.02.18, 14.02.18, 16.02.18 and 20.02.18 and estimate for repairing by Maruti Motor Kraft dated 10.04018, job card of O.P of 23.05.18 and the documents relating to complaint made to Consumer Redressal Grievance Cell.
Opposite Party has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations made by the complainant contending inter-alia that the said car was purchased by one M/S Notraj Electronics and the car was last serviced in June 2009. On 31.12.2017 long after 8 years the Complainant brought the car for service introducing herself as purchaser. Since the vehicle was without service and proper maintenance, replacement of several spares was necessary but the same was not done by the complainant due to her paucity of fund. Order placed by the complainant with the Service Engineer of the O.P for particular jobs to be done were properly done by the competent technicians of the Maruti Suzuki and whenever any complaint is received from any customer after delivery of the vehicle against the jobs done and billed by the company, it is rechecked and rectified.
Complainant was handed over the car after the job done on 20.02.18 and at that time complainant was satisfied with the job. According to complainant after taking delivery of car, on the next-date itself she faced the same problem persisted but she brought the car to O.P only 15 days from the date of delivery. On inspection it was found some parts were changed but the same was not replaced by the O.P.. Accordingly the O.P gave the estimate including estimate of painting. Thus O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case.
During the course of Trial, complainant filed an affidavit-in-chief, followed by filing of questionnaire by the O.P and reply by the complainant. O.P also filed their evidence followed by filing of questionnaire by the complainant but O.P did not take any step to file the reply inspite of repeated opportunities given and thus case was fixed for argument. Complainant has filed the brief notes of argument but O.P again did not take any step to argue the matter and thus the date was fixed for judgement.
Following points require to be considered :-
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points being inter- related are taken up together for a comprehensive discussion. Complainant in support of her claim that she has taken the subject car for servicing to the O.P has filed many invoice.It is not disputed that the car was a second hand car but when the car was taken for servicing and maintenance to the O.P for the first time on 31.12.2017, it was never stated by the O.P that due to the car being second hand or that the servicing was not done for 8 years as alleged by the O.P, the said car was creating problem. On the contrary document i.e, the invoice dated 31.12.2017 reveals necessary servicing or repairing was done by the O.P. However the problem occured again and the different job card retail dated 06.01.2018 to till 16.02.18 filed by the complainant indicates that the servicing and repairing were done by the O.P of different parts of the car. It that be so then it can be safely presumed that during the aforementioned period when the vehicle remained with the O.P. O.P did the required job towards repairing to solve the grievance. It appears from the invoice that Complainant paid a total sum of Rs 60000/- towards the job done. But it is strange that immediately few days thereafter complainant again had to take the vehicle to another authorised service centre of the Maruti Suzuki Co. namely Maruti Motor Kraft and from the invoice dated 26.3.2018 of the said service centre it appears that the complainant again had to pay a sum of Rs 9900/-and some of the repairing such as policing and front suspension arm were done again. Servicing of these parts and polishing also find reflection in the invoices or bill raised by the O.P. so this indicates the servicing or repairing were not done properly by the O.P which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant in this case has not sought the relief of directing the O.P to repair the car but she has asked for refund of entire sum of Rs 60000/-paid by her and a further sum of Rs 35000/- But the same cannot be allowed as it cannot be said that no service at all was done by the O.P. The Complainant has claimed that even though the O.P. has charged Rs. 28000/- for painting and Rs. 4000/- for denting but no such work was done. But in this context it may be pointed out that the Complainant has not filed any document that painting and denting were not done or again she had to get it done by other service centre. However she is entitled to get back the amount of Rs 1750/- paid towards polishing, Rs 667/- for Arm Assy for suspension control and also compensation for mental agony and harassment. An amount of Rs 40000/- would be justified as compensation and Rs 10000/- as litigation cost.
Hence
Ordered
CC/544/2018 is allowed on contest. Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs 2417/-to the complainant and to pay Rs 40000/- as compensation and Rs 10000/- as litigation cost , within two months from this date failing which the entire amount shall carry interest 8% p.a. till realisation.
