Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/162

Rozal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mela Singh & Sons - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                C.C.No.162 of 16.03.2015

                                                          Date of decision:26.05.2015 

Rozal d/o S.Ranjit Singh, B-21, H.No.12655, Opposite Industrial Estate, Link Road, Ludhiana-141003.

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus       

Mela Singh & sons(works) M.S.House, G.T.Road, Opp.Railway Station, Ludhiana-8.

                                                …Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                                     

Present:       Complainant Ms.Rozal in person.

Op ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Ms.Rozal(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against Mela Singh & sons(works) M.S.House, G.T.Road, Opp.Railway Station, Ludhiana-8 (hereinafter in short to be described ‘Op’), directing him to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for financial loss due to negligence of OP and Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and unbearable humiliation and threat to safety caused by the OP alongwith interest to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant got her Rodeo serviced from OP and paid Rs.440/- to the OP towards the service cost vide job Card No.17996. In the above bill, Op charged Rs.250/- for engine oil. After three days, again some defects were observed in Rodeo, so the complainant took it for repair and again OP charged Rs.450/- against job card No.18027. In this bill too, OP charged her for engine oil. Thereafter, Rodeo is suffering from various defects from the day, the complainant got its serviced, details of which is as under:-

i)The service men made the digital meter dead when they accidentally put water into it. The reason, as told by their service men is water getting into it during service. They said, it will start working after the water dries up in a day or two, which never actually happened. Later, on enquiring about the same, the complainant told to get it replaced with a new digital meter at her expenses which is worth Rs.2000/-.

ii)During service, the service de-aligned the side stand due to which, it falls each time, the complainant make it stand and that side’s rear mirror, hand break got broke and it got scratches over its body on the particular side damaging it worth repair of Rs.5000/-.

iii)The indicators also got inactive. The reason, as told by the service men is water getting into it during service. They said, it will start working after the water dries up in a day or two, which never actually happened.

iv)The head light came out after service, reason being unknown and she was told to get it repaired at her expenses from somewhere else which would cost her alteast Rs.2000/-.

v)During the service, the electric plug was replaced with a new one. After coming home, the scooteret could not be started for 10 days. The complainant calling at their service centre 4-5 days and after nearly begging, someone came to check it at home. The default, as she was told, was the defective plug( which obviously, was a new one), yet again. The service man charged her again Rs.290/- for it and also for the “visit home” service when they should not have. Also after repeated request, she was not given the bill for that visit for future reference.

Vi) Also, the self-start of the vehicle has been inoperative since the service and she have to use kick to start the engine. The engine also switches itself off in the middle of the traffic, causing a discomfort and the risk of being hit by the following vehicles, sometimes heavy ones, rushing from behind. Even in that situation, the self start does not work, where it is needed the most for safety.

vii)The speed of the vehicle has also reduced. It does not go higher than 40 kmph.

Further, it is averred that the complainant has reported the matter to OP several times through telephone and by way of seven day notice to rectify the defects. Moreover, OP replaced a self-start place, without her permission and charged her Rs.900/- for it, which is fraudulent on the part of OP. However, after repair, the scooteret is giving more problems like it stops anywhere in the middle of the road and forcing the complainant to leave it there and now, it is consuming more fuel and is giving loud noise when the engine is operative. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP which was received back with the report of ‘refusal’. As such, after adopting the due procedure, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.04.2015 by this Forum.

4.                In order to prove her case, complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed her ex-parte evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of complainant in person and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant has placed on record her affidavit in evidence as Ex.CA, in which, she has reiterated all the allegations made by her in the complainant. Further, the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of Expert Verification report on the condition of concerned vehicle made by Jaspal Singh, Pal Auto Home, in which, he had opined that the engine of the vehicle brought is not in a good condition and the vehicle suffers from serious defects and immediate attention to repair the vehicle is required as the vehicle might breakdown if driven for longer duration. Further, complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 i.e. copies of bills issued by the OP qua the repair of the vehicle in question on different dates.

7.                Since, the OP did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant is the owner of vehicle in question which she got serviced from the Op on payment of Rs.350/-, Rs.90, Rs.420/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.800/- by replacing the different parts of the same which fact is evident from the copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6. As per the allegations of the complainant made in her complaint as well as her affidavit Ex.CA, in which, she has deposed that she had got her Rodeo serviced from OP and had paid Rs.440/- to the OP towards the service cost vide job Card No.17996. In the above bill, Op had charged Rs.250/- for engine oil. However, after three days, again some defects were observed in Rodeo, so the complainant had taken her vehicle for repair and again OP had charged Rs.450/- against job card No.18027 and in this bill too, OP had charged her for engine oil. However, despite repair, her aforesaid vehicle is suffering from various defects. So, it is proved on record that the vehicle of the complainant suffers some defects despite repair from the OP on payment of charges which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct OPs to carry out the necessary repair of the vehicle in question of the complainant without any charges even by replacing the defective parts, for which, the complainant had already charged and make the vehicle of the complainant proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OP is directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed as Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 (Sat Paul Garg         )                     (R.L.Ahuja)

   Member                                  President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:26.05.2015

Gurpreet Sharma