Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/441/2015

Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhagat Ford - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	441 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	12.08.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	20.01.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, Formerly Professor of History, P.U. Chandigarh, House No.2059, Sector 15/C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Bhagat Ford, 53, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.H.S.Bedi, Advocate

 

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant on 7.8.2015 booked the service of two vehicle i.e. Ford Ikon CH03A-5625 and Ford Eco Sport CH01AX-8884, with Opposite Party, to be done on 8.8.2015.  Accordingly, the complainant reached the service station of Opposite Party at 10.15 am along with his driver and vehicles and informed the concerned persons, who responded that the services would be done on time and asked the complainant to wait in the Waiting Room.  However, when the complainant contacted the concerned person of Opposite Party at about 12.45 O’clock regarding the service done to the vehicles, he was shocked to see that by that time both the vehicles were not even touched and were parked as it is.  When the complainant agitated the matter, the official of the Opposite Party told that Ikon Car would be delivered by 4 p.m. and Eco Sports Car would be delivered the next day.  That on this, the complainant returned back to home along with his vehicles.  It is averred that the said behavior of the dealer has caused a lot of harassment, mental agony to the complainant apart from wastage of precious time. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating therein that at the time of doing the service, the answering Opposite Party is bound to check the entire vehicle and after detecting any defect, the same has to be rectified.  That on 8.8.2015 prior to 10.30 AM, there were eight vehicles at the premises of the answering Opposite Party for service, as such the serial number of the vehicles of the complainant was 9^th (Ann.OP/1).  That the official of the answering Opposite Party after receiving the vehicle had immediately prepared the job card and checked the vehicles (Ann.OP/2 and OP/3).  It is submitted that the Job Card of Eco Sport was prepared at 11.00 AM and Job Card of Icon was prepared on 11.20 AM and it was informed to the complainant that the vehicle would be delivered to him after completion of the service of the vehicles at about 4.00 PM and 5.00 PM respectively, but the complainant instead of waiting for his turn, to get his vehicle services created a scene at about 12.45 PM on 8.8.2015 and took his vehicles with him and filed the present complaint.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OPs and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the score that in order to get his two vehicles namely one Ford Eco Sport and Ford Ikon car services, contacted the Opposite Party, to fix an appointment and also expressed his desire that both the vehicles be serviced on the same day together. The complainant was asked to come on 8.8.2015 at 10.30 O’Clock in the morning, in response to which the complainant presented both his vehicles at 10.15 AM along with his driver, who was driving the second vehicle along with it.  The complainant was asked to wait in the waiting lounge while the staff of the workshop took the vehicles for service. 

 

6]       The complainant waited till 12.45 P.M. and finding that his vehicles still remained unattended asked the staff at the workshop of the Opposite Party as to why nothing was being done.  The complainant claims that the Ford Ikon vehicle would be delivered at 4.00 P.M. and the Eco Sport vehicle would be delivered a day after i.e. 9^th of August, 2015.   The complainant on hearing this raised the matter with the staff of the Opposite Party claiming that while calling him for the service of his vehicles, he was promised that the vehicles would be delivered on the same day and that too by the afternoon.  The complainant registered his grouse with the Opposite Party and finding no favourable response preferred to take away his vehicles un-serviced from the premises of the Opposite Party. The complainant has appended a note of dissatisfaction on the copy of Feedback Form annexed as Page No.10 with complaint.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party for having wasted his precious time and also on failure of keeping their promise of servicing the vehicle at the time of inviting the complainant for the same.  The complainant has sought the quoted relief against the Opposite Party.

 

7]       The Opposite Party while defending the case of the complainant has raised objections with regard to the complaint being vexatious and frivolous, without any valid cause of action against the Opposite Party and even went to the extent of claiming that the complainant being a retired Professor was free with his time and only finding small issues to raise finger against it.  The Opposite Party even disclosed that the number of vehicles which were called for service were duly entered in their record and each such vehicle was assigned a tentative time when the same would be available after the complete service is done.  The Opposite Party has also placed on record a copy of two different repair orders, which are Ann.OP-2 & 3, wherein the reporting Date & Time of each of the vehicles as well as the promised Date & Time of delivery of the vehicles after service is mentioned and the signatures of the complainant were also taken claiming that the complainant was completely in the know of the time when each of his vehicle would be ready for delivery after complete service.  Thus, the Opposite Party has sought the dismissal of the complaint being devoid of any merit and cause of action qua it.  

 

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and find it necessary to mention here that even though the repair orders of the vehicles in question were prepared by the Opposite Party as Ann.OP-2 & 3, the promised Date & Time of the delivery of the vehicles was mentioned as 13.00 Hours and 17.00 Hours respectively for Eco Sport and Ford Ikon vehicles respectively.  These vehicles were taken in for service at 11.00 AM and 11.20 AM.  While comparing the same with Ann.OP-1, which is the detail of all the vehicles, which were taken in for service on the given date, when the complainant too was invited for the service of his vehicles, and it is noticed that the complainant’s vehicle were taken-in at 10.02 hours and 10.20 hours respectively, whereas the same is found mentioned to be as 11.00 hours & 11.20 hours in their Job Cards (Ann.OP-2 & 3). There were as many as 18 vehicles, which reached the premises of the Opposite Party for service work alone, apart from other vehicles, which required mechanical work, body work etc.  The complainant’s first vehicle found mentioned at Sr.No.9 was the 7^th vehicle in line for service and the vehicle mentioned at Sr.No.10 bearing No.CH-01-BC-9903, which was reported for service at 10.03 hours i.e. just one minute after the first vehicle of the complainant was taken, is found to be serviced and released after service at 13.13 hours (1.13 P.M.).  This aspect clearly indicates that the Opposite Party preferred not to honour the basic principle of first-cum-first served as the complainant’s vehicle bearing No.CH-01-AX-8884 remained unattended, whereas the vehicle which reported immediately after it, was even ready at 1.13 P.M. when the complainant was requesting the Opposite Party to at least initiate some work, so that his entire day is not wasted. 

 

9]       The Opposite Party have not placed on record the Job Cards of the different vehicles which have come for service for us to believe that the Opposite Party were sincere enough to quote the tentative delivery date & time and the same could be co-related from the departure of such vehicles after service from Ann.OP-1. In the absence of complete evidence from the side of the Opposite Party, we are compelled to believe that the Opposite Party preferred to temper with the priority of its customers, for the reasons best known to it alone and the unsuspecting clients like the complainant are left to fend for themselves and wait indefinitely in the waiting area of the workshop and kill their time while the Opposite Party serviced the vehicle in pick & choose manner.  Such a practice of the Opposite Party amounts to an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on its part towards its customers.

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against Opposite Party. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[b] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th January, 2016                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.441 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 20th day of January, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member