Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 236
Instituted on : 01.06.2018
Decided on : 21.03.2024
Balwan Singh s/o Ramehar Singh R/o H.No.363, W.No.1, Kanwar Singh Colony, Jhajjar Tehsil and District Jhajjar.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
Mohan Tractors(P) Ltd. Authorised Dealer of Ashok Leyland 18th KM Stone, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 Tehsil and District Rohtak through it authorized person. Vaish College Rohtak through its Principal.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.GouravKhurana Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Hitesh Kumar, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are thathe had purchased a truck No.HR-63-D-5860 from the opposite party. The above said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 26.07.2017 and the complainant brought his vehicle to the respondent for repairing on 27.07.2017. Opposite party assured the complainant to hand over the vehicle within two or three days after repairing but despite his repeated visits to the opposite party’s office, the same was not repaired on time. The opposite party handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 18.08.2017 after getting repaired the same. But due to deficiency in service as well as irresponsibility on the part of respondent, the complainant could not ply the vehicle for many days as the same was purchased for commercial purpose, due to which the complainant suffered a huge financial loss. Moreover, the complainant had to make the payment/salary of his two drivers and one helper to the tune of Rs.30000/- per month + diet. The act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.1 lac on account of financial loss, Rs.3000/- on account of salary of drivers & helper, Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint,notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that no such assurance ever given to the complainant, rather the complainant was told that it will took a sufficient time to repair the vehicle due to accidental damage. The complainant was told on the very first day that in repairing of vehicle few days will be spent as the vehicle has been badly damaged in the accident. After repairing of vehicle, it was immediately handed over to the complainant. The opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 17.03.2020. Ld. Counsel for opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 12.02.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that the accident had taken place on 26.07.2017 and the vehicle was brought in the workshop of opposite partyby the complainant on 27.07.2017. It is also not disputed that and after repair of the vehicle the same was handed over to the complainant on 18.08.2017 by the oppositeparty. As per complainant opposite party had delivered the vehicle belatedly, due to which he suffered financial loss and mental harassment. As per Crane Service bill Ex.C2, the recovery van had left the vehicle on 26.07.2017. Job sheet/tax invoice issued by the opposite party is dated 23.08.2017. But in the present case it is not proved that any assurance was given by the opposite party that upto which date, the vehicle will be repaired. Complainant was told that it will took a sufficient time to repair the vehicle due to accidental damage.However the vehicle in question was handed over to the complainant after repair. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and present case stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
