DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 14                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  10.01.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    21.03.2017

Rakesh Kumar Singla aged 45 years son of Shri Sham Lal Singla, Proprietor Suvidha Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

M/s Bhinder Auto Works, Khai Road, near Sua Da Pull Lehragaga, District Sangrur through its Proprietor S.Bhinder Singh.

      ….Opposite party.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri V.K.Singla,  Advocate                          

FOR THE OPP. PARTY      :     Exparte                   

Quorum

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Rakesh Kumar Singla complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he is owner of Bajaj Chetak Scooter  Model 2002 colour white which was not working properly for which he approached the OP. The complainant gave the scooter to the OP on 3.4.2016 for its repair, change of parts and denting painting but the OP failed to repair the vehicle and change its parts within time and demanded advance of Rs.5000/- in May 2016 which was paid through a cheque no.000002 of HDFC Bank Limited. The OP handed over the vehicle on 25.06.2016  by visiting the premises in his absence. When the complainant started the vehicle on 01.10.2016 then he found that only paint work is done and the scooter is still having shocker problem, noise, meter reading, mileage etc are as yet and the meter reader part is not changed. Even sometime gear wire and sometime clutch wire lost its place and each time the OP assured to do all work in free time but till date the OP has not done anything.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to return  the  amount of Rs.5000/- ,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)     OP be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP but despite service the OP did not appear and as such the OP was proceeded exparte.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant has produced on record  cash/ credit memo dated 25.06.2016 for Rs.5000/- for the work of denting and painting and labour  issued by the OP in the name  of M/s Suvidha Centre opp. Tehsil Office Lehragaga and not in the name of  complainant Rakesh Kumar Singla.  The said cash/ credit memo  does not show that said work of denting and painting has to be done to the said scooter of the complainant  as in it  it  has only been mentioned  that the work of denting and painting has to be done. The complainant has produced on record  copy of statement of account of  M/s Suvidha Center c/o Suvidha Center, Opp. Tehsil Office Lehragaga  which further does not show that the said account is of  Rakesh Kumar Singla complainant as  in it there is no name of the complainant  Rakesh Kumar Singla has been mentioned anywhere but  it shows that  on 25.05.2016  a cheque for an amount of Rs.5000/- had been paid to Bhinder Singh.

5.             In the instant case, the complainant's case is that the OP assured to return the vehicle within seven to ten days after its repair, change of parts and denting/ painting  but he found that  only paint work is done and  the scooter is still having a shocker problem, noise, meter reading, mileage etc. Surprisingly,  from the perusal of entire file we find that the complainant has not produced any document/ evidence which could show that what work had to be done by the OP  at the time of handing over the  scooter in question to the OP. Moreover, the complainant has not produced on record any document in the shape of agreement regarding the work done by the OP whereas he has produced on record  cash/credit memo issued by the OP wherein it has only been mentioned that work of denting and painting has to  be done by the OP which the complainant  has accepted  that the paint work has been  done by the OP.             

6.             In view of the facts stated above, we find that the complainant failed to prove his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence on record.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                March 21, 2017

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President