BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No.31 of 2015
Instituted On: 12.05.2015
Decided On: 15.05.2015
Thamanpreet Singh aged 32 years son of Amarjit Singh, resident of village Atari, Post Office Balkhandi, Tehsil Dharamkot, Distt. Moga.
………Complainant
Versus
Modern Motors, Near ITI, G.T. Road, Moga, Distt. Moga, through its Manager
……..Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 of The
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coram: Sh S.S. Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt Bhupinder Singh, Member
Present: Sh. Ashok Goyal Advocate Cl. for complainant.
ORDER
(S.S. Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Modern Motors, Near ITI, G.T. Road, Moga, Distt. Moga, through its Manager (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite party’) directing it to pay Rs.30,000/- as charges of pain, Rs.12,000/- as charges for original
CC/31/2015 \\2//
accessory/external parts of the jeep No.DEB-9595 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental tension and harassment besides costs of litigation and also to grant any other relief to which this Forum may deem proper.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the Jeep bearing registration No.DEB-9595 was earlier owned and possessed by his maternal grandfather, was gifted to him by his maternal uncle for the last 4-5 years. Complainant alleged that in the month of November, 2013 he brought the said jeep in the workshop of opposite party for getting new paint with Two-K type of paint after removing previous paint. Opposite party demanded Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and he paid Rs.15,000/- as advance. Thereafter complainant visited opposite party time and again to get the delivery of his jeep from the opposite party. But the opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle in question and the parts of the jeep were remained scattered here and there. The complainant further alleged that after passing of four months, opposite party delivered the possession of jeep on receiving the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- but the opposite party did not do the needful as assured by it as the new paint on the jeep was not shining as disclosed by the opposite party. The latter told him that Two-K type of colour/paint will give shining after a few days, but after one month from the date of paint of jeep, the paint of the Jeep got damaged. On inquiry from some other person, it came to knowledge of complainant that opposite party has failed to paint the jeep with Two-K type of colour/paint
CC/31/2015 \\3//
and some of the parts of the jeep were not painted and even the opposite party replaced some of the original external parts of the jeep with duplicate parts causing loss to the complainant to the tune Rs.12,000/-. The complainant served a legal notice upon opposite party for making the payment of damages but all in vain. Due to the deficiency in service and negligent act of the opposite party, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment and economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Heard on question of admission.
4. It is the case of the complainant that he is the owner of Jeep No.DEB-9595, which is an old model jeep and he has the possession of the same for the last 4-5 years. In the month of November 2013, the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the new paint of aforesaid jeep with Two-K type of paint after removing the previous old paint for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. It is further case of the complainant that he made payment of Rs.15,000/- in advance to opposite party. The opposite party delivered back the jeep in question after 4 months on receiving balance payment of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. However, the new paint on the jeep was not shining as orally promised by the opposite party. After one month of the delivery of the jeep, the paint of the jeep started getting deteriorating. The complainant served legal notice dated 04.03.2015 calling upon the opposite party to either repaint the Jeep as agreed or to refund the amount of Rs.42,000/- i.e. Rs.12,000/- as original accessory
CC/31/2015 \\4//
charges and Rs.30,000/- as paint charges received by the opposite party besides damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, but to no effect.
5. In support of his case, the complainant has not produced any document to prove the alleged payment of Rs.15,000/- each made by him to the opposite party on two occasions. So much so, even copy of registration certificate of the jeep in question did not see the light of the day in this Fora to prove ownership of the vehicle. It was incumbent upon the complainant to have adduced receipt(s) regarding the payment of paint charges made by him to the opposite party to prove himself to be a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such he cannot be termed to be a consumer and the complaint under Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant is not maintainable. We stand fortified from M/S. Cadbury India Ltd. & anr. petitioners Vs Grahak Parishad & Anr. respondents 2015 (2) CLT 333 (NC), wherein it has been laid down that in the light of aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that on account of not producing purchase voucher of Cadbury and not impleading the shop owner from where Cadbury was purchased, complaint was not maintainable against petitioner and no manufacturing defect can be attributed on the growth of insects in Cadbury after eight months of purchase. Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
CC/31/2015 \\5//
6. The complainant could become consumer under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act only, if he had produced on record the bills/receipts of payments made by him to the opposite party for getting his old jeep repainted as alleged. Since there are only oral allegations, which do not find support from any documentary evidence, therefore, the complaint as framed, is not maintainable before this Fora. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law and it deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. If process is issued to opposite party in such like cases, flood gates of frivolous complaints would open. As such instant complaint is ordered to be dismissed in limine. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Bhupinder Kaur) (Vinod Bala) (S.S.Panesar)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:15.05.2015.
