Dr. Ravi Kant filed a consumer case on 10 Apr 2017 against M/s C.M. Auto Sales(P) Ltd. in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/81 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Apr 2017.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 81 of 22.11.2016
Date of decision : 10.04.2017
Dr. Ravi Kant, aged about 38 years son of Sh. Kuldip Raj, resident of Village & P.O. Barwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
....Complainant
Versus
M/s C.M. Auto Sales (P) Ltd. N.H. 21, Rangilpur, Chandigarh Road, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its proprietor/Managing Director/Manager.
...Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Dr. Ravi Kant, complainant in person
Sh. Pardeep Mittal Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Dr. Ravi Kant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
1) To pay Rs.50,000/- against the damage of Swift Dzire VDI Maruti Car
2) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and also interest on the both amounts @ 18% per annum from 20.6.2016 till realization
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of swift Dzire D-1, Maruti Car bearing registration No.PB-12-Z-1609. On 20.06.2016, at about 12.00 PM., he took his car for 3rd free service to workshop of the O.P. At about 2.25 PM., he saw that the mechanic of the O.P. spoiled the Mats, Seat Covers, Dash Board and entire interior decoration of the car. He requested the said mechanic to do the needful, but he did not pay any heed to his request. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the Manager, he instead of solving the problem, misbehaved with him and the employee of the O.P. snatched his mobile set and deleted all the pictures clicked by him, regarding bad service done by the mechanic. However, one picture remained in his mobile set and same has been placed on record along with the complaint. He complained about the said incidence to the Maruti Sezuki Car Customer Care Centre, also, but no action has been taken, so far. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. has filed written version in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kalia, Manager, CM Auto Sales Pvt Ltd. taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable. The O.P. has been unnecessarily dragged in this frivolous litigation; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has wrongly claimed Rs.50,000/- from it. No report of mechanic/surveyor/ loss assessor has been placed on record by him to prove that he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. It is further stated that on 20.06.2016, the complainant after satisfying himself with regard to the service done by the O.P., had signed the job card. It is further stated that on 31.12.2016, complainant again brought his car for its service and had signed the job card after satisfying himself with regard to the service done by it. If the complainant was not satisfied with the service done conducted on 20.6.2016, then he would not have brought his car for its service on 31.12.2016 again. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs.
4. On being put to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and various other documents as Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kalia, Manager, Ex.OP1, along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. The complainant has contended that at the time of doing the 3rd free service, the mechanic of the O.P. spoiled the interior of his car and other accessories. To corroborate this fact, he has placed on record photocopy of picture, Ex.C3. The stand of the O.P. is that on 20.06.2016, the car of the complainant was serviced properly and the complainant after fully satisfying himself with the service, signed the job card.
7. Evidently, the copy of the picture, Ex.C3, placed on record by the complainant is blurred, therefore, as such, no reliance can be placed on the said picture, to arrive at a conclusion that the interior of the car and other accessories were spoiled/damaged during service. No other document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his case. In the absence of any cogent document, the contention of the complainant is not sustainable. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same with no order as to cost.
8. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules. The file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated: 10.04.2017 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.