Haryana

Karnal

CC/292/2022

M/s Mahadev Iron & Bottle Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motors Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar Popli

18 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 292 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.26.05.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:18.06.2024

 

M/s Mahadev Iron and Bottle Store, New Bahadur Chand Colony, Hansi Road,Karnal (HR), through its proprietor Mr. Chanderdeep Arora.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. situated near Baldi Bye-Pass Karnal, through its Director/Authorized Signatory.

……..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Popli, Adv. for the complainant.

    Shri Rajesh Gupta, Adv. for the opposite party.

 

                     (Dr.Suman Singh, Member)

 

ORDER:   

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the registered owner of a Truck bearing registration no.HR-45-D-7883, which is hypothecated with ICICI Bank Karnal. The said truck is being used by complainant for his livelihood. On 31.01.2022, the truck of complainant met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant brought his truck at the workshop of OP on the very next day of accident i.e. 01.02.2022 for repair. The representative/foreman of the workshop of the OP assured that the truck will be repaired within 15 days and will be delivered back to the complainant after its repair. After 15 days, complainant approached the workshop of OP but at that time also foreman of OP demanded 2-3 days more for completion of repair work. After 2-3 days, complainant again approached the OP for getting back his truck but representative/foreman of OP started postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and till 25.03.2022, OP has not delivered back the aforesaid truck, which resulted into day to day financial loss to the complainant. On account of non-delivering back the truck by OP, complainant was also not able to deposit next installment of Loan in ICICI Bank Ltd. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2022 to the OP but OP still did not delivered back the vehicle to the complainant and despite consistent demands of the complainant. Ultimately, OP delivered back the aforesaid truck after its complete repair to the satisfaction of the complainant on 14.04.2022 but after receiving delivery of truck, the complainant had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as financial damages on account of not delivering back the vehicle/truck to the complainant within agreed period of 15 days as well as for causing unnecessarily delay. But the OP did not pay any attention to the request of complainant and lastly refused to pay the compensation. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant had visited for accidental repair and the same was properly attended and made it roadworthy and the payment was made by the complainant and insurance company, hence there is no deficiency in service or fault of the OP. It is further pleaded that no case is made out against the OP i.e. service provider, because it is for complainant to explain the position about his Insurance Claim and the vehicle was properly attended and took the delivery of the truck thereafter as per invoice dated 31.03.2022. Neither the manufacturer, nor the insurance company were made party, hence the complaint is defective. It is further pleaded that the complainant is a business firm and the matter is of commercial nature and is not covered under the definition of consumer, nor there is any relation between the consumer and supplied. It is further pleaded that the matter in dispute is of accidental nature being a major accident which took place on 02.02.2022 at Nilokheri and the matter was referred to the insurance company, the surveyor was appointed and the matter was processed by the insurance company at their own level after completing various formalities by the complainant against a total estimated value of Rs.4,83,286/- and the vehicle was made roadworthy and thereafter took the delivery from the OP on 14.04.2022 as per Gate Pass and invoice, which is an admitted fact, hence there is no question of any compensation, deficiency in service as clearly admitted by the complainant. The complainant was fully satisfied with the accidental job done by the OP and being fully satisfied took the delivery with all salvage material duly signed by Chanderdeep Arora. It is further pleaded that complainant has not placed on file any documentary proof for claiming financial losses. The accidental took place on 02.02.2022, vehicle was received on 03.02.2022, claim was intimated to the insurance company, final survey was got done by Mr. A.P. Chawla and received approval for dismantling of parts on 07.02.2022 and approval of new chasis frame was received on 11.02.2022 and order was placed but the wrong chasis was received. Thereafter, new order was placed on 07.03.2022, 16.03.2022 and was received on 23.03.2022 from Tata Motors, as the chasis was not available in their stock and thereafter the accidental job was done and the truck was delivered to the complainant on 14.04.2022 as fully satisfied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of register entry of metro motors Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 25.03.2022 Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4, copy of gatepass dated 14.04.2022 Ex.C5, copy of payment receipt Ex.C6, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C7, copy of insurance policy Ex.C8, copy of bank statement Ex.C9, copy of translation of telephonic conversation Ex.C10, copy of pen drive with voice dated 13.04.2022 conversation with Chanderdeep Arora and Naseeb Assistant Manager Ex.C11, certificate under section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 22.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar, General Manager of Metro Motors Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 23.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is the registered owner of a Truck. On 31.01.2022, the said truck met with an accident and was badly damaged. Complainant brought his truck at the workshop of OP on the very next day of accident for repair. The service manager of OP assured the complainant that he can take the delivery of the truck after 15 days but OP could not handover the repaired vehicle for a long time and due to that the complainant has suffered huge financial loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the matter in dispute is of accidental nature a major accident took place on 02.02.2022. The matter was referred to the insurance company. The surveyor was appointed and the matter was processed by the insurance company after completing various formalities by the complainant against a total estimated value of Rs.4,83,286/-. The vehicle was made roadworthy and complainant took the delivery from the OP on 14.04.2022, hence no question of any compensation arises. The complainant was fully satisfied with the accidental job done by the OP. He further argued that complainant has not placed on file any documentary proof for claiming financial losses and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           The vehicle in question met with an accident on 31.01.2022 and brought in the workshop of OP. Complainant has alleged that the Service Manager of the OP assured him that the vehicle will be repaired within 15 days but OP  failed to repair the same within time as promised by the OP and thus the complainant has suffered huge financial loss. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. To prove his case the complainant has relied upon the pendrive Ex.C11 and on playing the same it was found empty and except this, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove the version of complainant. On the other hand, the OP has alleged that the truck in question met with an accident on 02.02.2022 and accordingly the process for repairing of vehicle was started. Firstly, the surveyor was appointed and after completing all the formalities, new cassis frame was received on 11.02.2022 but wrong chassis was received. Thereafter, new order was placed on 07.03.2022 and 16.03.2022 and the parts were received on 23.03.2022 from Tata Motors. Thereafter, the truck in question was repaired and handed over the same to the complainant on 14.04.2022. The only grievance of the complainant is that the OP did not deliver the truck to him within the promised time. It is a common practice that in the accidental cases, the repairs of vehicles take time as in the process of insurance claim several formalities has to be completed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

11.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated:18.06.2024

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

                   Member                               Member