Punjab

Sangrur

CC/479/2016

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Max Auto - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vinay Kumar Jindal

13 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  479

                                                Instituted on:    03.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       13.01.2017

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Vinod Kumar, resident of Shivpuri Mohalla, Ward No.14-A, House No.133, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri,

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Max Autos, Maruti Authorised Dealer, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its owner/M.D./partner/prop.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Saurav Garg,Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                 Sarita Garg, Member

                 Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Parveen Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he purchased a Maruti Alto car bearing registration umber PB-13-AS-4672 from the OP for Rs.3,84,000/- on 2.3.2016, which was got insured by the OP from Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited for the period from 3.2.2016 to 2.2.2016 after paying the requisite premium.

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 25.5.2016, some children were playing cricket near the house of the complainant and a cricket ball struck with front windshield (front glass) of the car as a result of which it broke down.  As such on 26.5.2016 the complainant along with Yash Pal visited the OP to change only front windshield of the car with a new one because there was no other defect or problem.  The OP kept the car and asked to come after two days to take the delivery of the car.  Further case of the complainant is that when after two days he visited the OP to take back the delivery of the car, it was found that the OP changed the front windshield of the car and also repainted the left rear quarter panel of the car without any consent of the complaint, as there was no need to repaint the same.  On enquiry, the Manager of the OP told that some paint fell down mistakenly on the car from our workers, due to this reason we have repainted the left rear quarter of the car, as a result of which the market value of the car had been decreased sufficiently to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and also the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loss suffered by the complainant and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question. However, it has been denied that on 25.5.2016 the front windshield of the car broke down due to struck of ball, but it is stated that when the complainant brought the car on 26.5.2016, it was asked that the complainant was going in his car when a cricket ball came and struck on the front windshield of the car and when he suddenly applied brakes then another car hit on the back side of the car due to which the rear bumper got completely damaged and due to the impact of the accident the rear quarter panel also got damaged and asked the OP to repair the car by replacing the front windshield, rear bumper and by repainting the rear left quarter panel. It has been denied that the OP did not provide the copy of job sheet.  It is stated by the Op in the written reply that on 26.5.2016 when the complainant brought the car to the Op then it was stated that suddenly a cricket ball came and struck on the front windshield and when the complainant suddenly applied brakes then another car hit on the back side of the car due to which rear bumper got completely damaged and due to the impact of the accident the rear left quarter panel also got damaged and asked the OP to repair the car by replacing the front windshield, rear bumper and by repainting the rear left quarter panel. Further it is stated that the OP even requested  Axalta Coating System India Pvt. Ltd. to come and perform DFT test on the car of the complainant which was  conducted on 6.7.2016 to the satisfaction of the complainant and the report of the test was also prepared by that  company after duly checking the car in the presence of the complainant and the complainant after admitting the report as correct signed the report in question.   It is however denied that the market value of the car has decreased to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- due to repairing of left rear quarter panel.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of driving license, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of original writing, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of letter dated 3.6.2016, Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-6 photographs, Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-9 copies of emails, Ex.OP-10 copy of insurance claim form, Ex.OP-11 copy of receipt, Ex.OP-12 copy of DFT test, Ex.OP-13 copy of letter dated 8.6.2016, Ex.OP-14 copy of letter dated 14.6.2016 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the car in question on 2.3.2016 from the OP and further it is also admitted fact that the car in question was got insured from Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited.  It is further an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant brought the car for repairs on 26.5.2016 with the grievance of front windshield broken.

 

7.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP has repainted the left rear quarter panel of the car without any reason and as such the value of the new car has been decreased and accordingly the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP on account of loss suffered by the complainant due to the negligence of the OP. On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that on 26.5.2016 when the complainant brought his car for repairs to the OP, then the complainant had stated that he was going in his car when a cricket ball came and struck on the front windshield of the car and when the complainant applied brakes then another car hit on the backside of the car due to which the rear bumper got completely damaged and due to this impact of the accident, the rear left quarter panel also got damaged and the OP repaired the car by replacing the front windshield, rear bumper and by repainting the rear left quarter panel. 

8.             Further to support the grievance, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited a writing dated 3.6.2016 Ex.C-3, wherein it has been written “we have received a car PB13AS4672 on 26.05.2016 for the job of replacement of front windshield glass and rear bumper also has dent on rear left quarter panel front windshield glass replaced, rear bumper replaced and quarter panel repaired.  By mistake, during repair process something (like paint) sprayed on the car, which was removed by rubbing the car. Now the car is OK. There is no stain and mark of spray on the car. Car is perfectly all right.”  We have perused this writing very carefully, but we failed to understand how the OP is deficient in service, more so when the OP has repaired the car fully and handed over to the complainant after his full satisfaction in perfect condition.  Moreover,  the stand of the Op is that the complainant brought the car in question on 26.5.2016 to the OP by stating that the complainant had stated that he was going in his car when a cricket ball came and struck on the front windshield of the car and when the complainant applied brakes then another car hit on the backside of the car due to which the rear bumper got completely damaged and due to this impact of the accident, the rear left quarter panel also got damaged and the OP repaired the car by replacing the front windshield, rear bumper and by repainting the rear left quarter panel. But, we may mention that the complainant has not filed any rejoinder to deny these allegations of the OPs nor the complainant has denied this fact in the affidavits filed on the record. 

 

9.             Further during arguments the learned counsel for the OP shown us two other job sheets i.e. of one Pardeep Kumar and of M/s. NATMAR CO. Hardeep Singh to establish that though various jobs are conducted, but in the job order sheets the main work such as in the present case ‘windshield glass replacement’ has been mentioned, but other works including the bumper, holder, molding, paint material and others works have been done. As such, we feel that only the main work to be done is mentioned on the job sheet.

 

10.           In the present case the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss i.e. decrease of the market value of the car in question, but to support such a contention, the complainant has produced no cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence to establish this allegation that how he conclude that the market value of the vehicle has reduced to such an extent.   In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has repaired the car in question and nothing more is required to be done on the part of the OP. 

 

 

11  .         In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 13, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member