STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

M/s Chandigarh Medical Corporation, S.C.O. No.345-346, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its proprietor Sh.Daljit Singh Kohli.

                                                                                           …Appellant

                                        V e r s u s

 1]      M/s Apex Motors, 45, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through Sh. S.S. Sarkaria.

 2]      Sh. S. S. Sarkaria, M/s Apex Motors, 45, Industrial Area, Phase-II,           Chandigarh.

                                                                                    ...Respondents

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection          Act, 1986 against   order dated 8.12.2016 passed by                 District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II,                   U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.18/2015.

Argued by:    Mr.Shubhjot Singh Chadha, Advocate for the appellant.

                       Mr.P.K.Kukreja,Advocate for the respondents.

 BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                             MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 8.12.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), dismissing his complaint bearing No.18 of 2015.

 2.              Before the said Forum, it was case of the complainant that it, being a registered proprietorship firm, is a separate legal entity, the complaint was filed through its sole proprietor.  In the complaint, it was alleged that the complainant is owner of a car (Mercedes-Benz). The said vehicle started giving trouble in the month of December, 2013.  It was taken to M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. on 26.12.2013.  Its engine was removed and taken to M/s Guru Nanak Engineering Works for repair.  The said concern showed its inability to repair the engine.  It was taken back to M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. The engine was refitted and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 10.2.2014 on payment of cost incurred for the job.  On 24.2.2014, the vehicle developed some noise in the engine.  The matter was brought to the notice of OP No.2, who asked the complainant to bring the vehicle to his workshop.  Accordingly the vehicle was handed over to OPs by carrying it on flat-bed truck. It was said that the vehicle was in a running condition. Engine could not be repaired and order was placed with the company namely Mercedes-Benz Engines at USA.   The car was taken to the house of the complainant by carrying it on a flat-bed truck. By driving it in reverse mode, it was parked in the parking space of the house. Engine was received on 7.6.2014. Thereafter, on 9.6.2014, an employee of the OPs picked up the vehicle and it was brought to the workshop of the OPs by loading it on a flat-bed truck. Work was not completed. Correspondence continued between the parties for a long and vehicle was returned to the complainant on 15.7.2014, on payment of Rs.22,472/- The vehicle was not in a working condition.  It was transported through a  flat-bed truck and it was unloaded at Punjab Motors, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Mohali. After conducting initial checking, for repair, it sent an estimate of Rs.79,257/-. On checking, many defects were found, as referred to in paragraph-16 of the complaint. In the gear oil, when it was drained out, foreign particles were detected. Ultimately, total repair was recommended against price of Rs.9,53,731/-.  It is case of the complainant that damage was caused on account of mishandling of the vehicle by the OPs. Further loss was caused on account of travelling through taxi etc.  The complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming payment of an amount of Rs.19,40,000/- with interest. 

3.                Upon notice, reply was filed. A  specific objection was taken that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is a commercial establishment. It was further said that OP No.1 is an authorized service station of Tata Motors Ltd.. The complainant, of his own,  took the vehicle to M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter it was brought to the workshop of the OPs. It was specifically stated that the vehicle was not brought to the workshop of the OPs on 10.2.2014, as alleged, and no payment was received. The vehicle had covered 1,24,787 kms. It was a case of replacement of entire engine block.  It was staid that story of transporting the car through truck was false. Immediately after checking the car, it was returned. It was undertaken by the complainant that on getting the engine assembly, the car would be brought to the workshop of OPs. The vehicle was not in a driving condition and it was not driven by any employee of the OPs, as alleged. On receipt of engine block, car was brought to the workshop and repair job was started on getting instructions from the complainant’s representative and thereafter it was delivered to the complainant on 15.7.2014. Despite requests made, old engine assembly was not removed by the complainant. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent on 11.12.2014 to remove said part of the car from the workshop of OPs. OPs also filed a Civil Suit which is pending. The vehicle was purchased in an auction from the government as a condemned vehicle.

4.        Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, dismissed the complaint as complainant failed to prove any deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs. When declining relief by the Forum, it was observed as under;

 “From the perusal of the Annexure C-1, it is revealed that the car was taken to Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. on 26.12.2013 for repair and delivered after repair at the cost of Rs.70087/- on 10.2.2014.  While under repair the engine and cylinder head was removed. For repair of the car the complainant took the services of Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., M/s Guru Nanak Engineering Works, Manimajra, Bhagat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and Panjab Motors  apart from the services of OPs, on one account or other between 10.2.2014 till the filing of this complaint  i.e. on 9.1.2015. The complainant has not impleaded Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., M/s Guru Nanak Engineering Works, Manimajra, Bhagat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. and Panjab Motors as  necessary party to the instant complaint  for proper adjudication of the matter.”

5.         It was rightly noted that the vehicle was taken to various workshops and those were not impleaded as parties. It was also noted that as per communication sent by the complainant, drained out oil was again put in the gear box. It was also noticed that there was nothing on record that the vehicle was driven by any employee of the OPs and it was damaged. As per case of the complainant,  when car developed defect in the first instance, it was transported to M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. on a flat-bed truck. In the same fashion, the car was transported four times from one place to another including the workshop of  OPs.  It is averred by the complainant that during  loading and unloading of the car in a truck, it was put to working.  The version of the complainant that the car was in a running condition appears to be false. If the car was in a running condition, it could have been taken as such to the workshop of M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. and then workshop of OPs. There was no necessity to carry it through a flat-bed truck.  It appears that the car was defective from the very beginning and it was not in a running condition.

6.              Otherwise also, complaint was not maintainable.  Admittedly the complainant is a commercial concern. As per averments made in paragraph No.1 of the complaint, it is specifically stated that complainant is a registered proprietorship firm. It has separate legal entity and the complaint was being filed through its sole proprietor. It is true that for use of the proprietor/partner, a firm can purchase a car. However, to say so, some resolution etc. is supposed to be brought on record. However, no such proof has been placed on the file.  We find no case made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

7.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

8.               Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

27.4.2017