Pawan Kumar Gupta filed a consumer case on 28 Feb 2024 against Modern Automobiles in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is CC/109/2024 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Mar 2024.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.
Complaint No.109 of 2024
Date of instt.26.02.2024
Date of Decision:28.02.2024
Pawan Kumar Gupta son of Shri Ram Juwari Gupta, resident of H.No.GF654, Sector-4, HBC, Near Amul Dairy, Karnal.
…….Complainant.
Versus
Modern Automobiles, Old G.T. Road, Near Namastey Chowk, Karnal, 132001, through its authorized signatory.
…..Opposite party
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before Shri Jaswant Singh……President.
Shri Vineet Kaushik ………..Member
Dr.Suman Singh ………Member
Present: Shri N.K.Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
(Jaswant Singh, President)
ORDER:
Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is registered owner of a vehicle Maruti Ertiga ZXi bearing registration No.HR45D-8353. In the first week of February, 2024, the said vehicle met with an accident. The complainant approached Op for its repair but the said vehicle could not repair by the Op upto 10.02.2024. On 12.02.2024 and 13.02.2024, complainant again visited the OP to collect his vehicle but he was surprised to see that his vehicle was as it was given and no repair work was started. Thereafter, complainant sent email to the OP and other higher officials of company and requested reo repair his vehicle at the earliest as he is suffering huge financial losses. On 19.02.2024, the OP handed over the said vehicle without doing washing and rubbing work. The OP charged Rs.850/- from complainant as file charges and also charged cost of back lamp/light as Rs.3099/- in double from the complainant in cash and also added this amount in the bill given to the insurance company, whereas the said policy was cashless. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Thus, the present complaint.
2. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.
3. As per the pleadings of the complainant, the main grievance of the complainant is that the OP has charged an amount of Rs.3099/- from the complainant and also from the insurance company. As per the general condition of the insurance company, they have charged 50% amount of the rubber and plastic parts on replacing the same with new one. Furthermore, the complainant has not impleaded the insurance company as party in the present complaint from them it can be cleared that actually the said amount has been received double by the OP. Complainant has also alleged that OP has not repaired the vehicle in question in time and handed over the same without doing washing and rubbing work. The vehicle in question was insured and surveyor was appointed, thus it takes time in insurance process and it is not possible that the vehicle in question is to be handed over within 2 or 3 days as alleged by the complainant. The allegations leveled by the complainant is of vague nature. Hence, it appears that the present has been filed only to waste the precious time of this Commission, harass the OP and to grab the money from the OP. Thus, we do not find any merits in the present complaint.
4. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 28.02.2024
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik) (Dr. Suman Singh)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.