Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/56/2015

Sanjeev Bhatia S/o Ram Lal Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Oberoi Motorzone Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Aggarwal

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 56 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 12.02.2015

                                                                                    Date of Decision:21.06.2016

Sanjeev Bhatia son of late Sh. Ram Lal Bhatia, resident of H. No. 657, Chhoti Line, Near Panchayati Gurudwara, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                              ...Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Oberoi Motorzone Pvt. Ltd. Near Kapil Hospital, Jagadhri, through its Prop./Partner.

 

                                                                                                             …Respondent.  

                                                                                                           

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Smt. Renu Arora, Advocate, counsel for respondent.  

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to repair the vehicle of the complainant at their own costs which is lying in the premises of the OP and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is a registered owner of two wheeler vehicle Access bearing registration No.  HR-02-X-0887. The complainant hired the paid service of his vehicle in question on 29.09.2014 from the OP and paid Rs. 1600/- vide receipt No. 664 dated 29.9.2014 on account of various parts as well as oil etc. After a short span of its running since paid service, the engine of the vehicle in question seized and in this regard, the complainant approached the OP. The mechanic of the Op stated that the said vehicle required engine repair and for that Rs. 10,000/- shall be borne by the complainant, whereas the said major defect occurred within a few days since paid service, from which it appears that mechanic service engineer has not filled in the engine, the required oil, although the amount charged in this regard, due to which the defect occurred. So, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP and lastly prayed that Op be directed to repair the vehicle in question free of costs and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; as there is no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit, all the contents of the complaint even denied except that complainant hired the paid service from the OP. it has been further stated that in fact complainant came to the OP after one month i.e. on 31.10.2014 and complaint accordingly. The meter reading of the vehicle was at the time of service noted as 32111 KM. However, at the time of complaint on 31.10.2014, the meter reading was 33275 KM i.e. 1664 KM meaning thereby that complainant run the vehicle in question 1664 KM after the paid service within a short period i.e. one month. Further it has been mentioned that the paid service was done by very experienced mechanic with due care and caution and there was no negligence on the part of OP. As such the complainant is not entitled for any relief. It has been further mentioned by the Op that the said vehicle is parked in the workshop of the OP by the complainant and even after several requests the complainant is not taking his vehicle back, so, the OP is entitled for claim of Rs. 150/- per day as parking charges from the complainant from 31.10.2014 to till its actual possession taken by the complainant. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint being there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as copy of bill of paid service dated 29.09.2014 as Annexure C-1 and C-2, Job sheet dated 20.9.2014 as Annexure C-3, Receipt of Rs. 1600/- paid on 29.09.2014 as Annexure C-4, Legal notice as Annexure C-5, Postal receipt and acknowledgement as Annexure C-6 and C-7, copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-8, Bills of repair dated 28.05.2015, 29.05.2015, 30.05.2015 and 21.10.2015 as Annexure C-9 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Nitish Oberoi as Annexure RW/A and Job Card dated 31.10.2014 as Annexure R-1, Job sheet dated 20.09.2014 as Annexure R-2, Job sheet dated 23.04.2015 as Annexure R-3, Copy of RC as Annexure R-4, Copy of bill dated 29.09.2014 as Annexure R-5 and R-6, Copy of purchase bill dated 14.10.2014 as Annexure R-7, Sale certificate as Annexure R-8, Service coupon as annexure R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only version of the complainant is that he hired the paid service of the vehicle Access bearing registration No. HR-02X-0887 and handed over the vehicle in question on 20.09.2014 to the OP vide job sheet dated 20.09.2014 Annexure C-3 and collect the same on 29.09.2014 after paying Rs. 1600/- vide receipt No.664 dated 29.09.2014 Annexure C-1 and C-2 and C-4 on account of spare parts as well as change of oil and service charges  etc. and the engine of the Access vehicle in question seized after a short span of its running since paid service and due to that complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs. 10,000/- as well as mental agony and harassment. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when the OP refused to repair the vehicle in question free of costs then he get it repaired from the local market and spent huge amount which is evident from the bills Annexure C-9 to C-13.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops hotly argued at length that all the contents of the complaint are concocted one just to extract the money from the OP. The vehicle in question i.e. Access bearing registration No. HR-02X-0887 was purchased by the complainant on 14.10.2010 which is evident from the copy of invoice Annexure R-7 and sale certificate Annexure R-8. Learned counsel for the Op further argued that no doubt the complainant hired the paid service on 20.09.2014/29.09.2014 and paid Rs. 1600/- vide invoice/bill dated 29.09.2014 Annexure C-1, C-2 and C-4 but the allegations of the complainant that the engine of the Access vehicle in question was seized due to negligence on the part of OP is totally wrong and denied and draw our attention towards the job sheet dated 20.09.2014 Annexure R-2 wherein the kilometer cover was shown as 32111 and further the job sheet dated 31.10.2014 wherein the kilometer covered by the vehicle has been shown as 33275 and argued that with a short span of one month complainant drove his scooter Access/vehicle in question 1164 KM. So, it cannot be presumed that service engineer of the OP not filled the engine oil during the paid service and due to that engine of the vehicle in question was seized. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the complainant has totally failed to produce any expert/mechanic report to prove that the engine of the vehicle in question was seized due to non filled of the engine oil, even, no such report has been filed by the complainant that engine of the vehicle in question was seized. Mere filing of bill of purchasing of spare parts Annexure C-9 to C-12 it cannot be said that in fact the engine of the vehicle in question was seized due to the negligence of the OP. Furthermore, from the perusal of job sheets Annexure R-1 and R-2 it is clearly evident that complainant drove his vehicle/scooter in question 1164 KM after getting the paid service on 29.9.2014 till 31.10.2014, so, it cannot be presumed that there was any negligence on the part of OP in carrying out the service of the vehicle in question because if there was any fault remains in the service then the vehicle in question could not cover the distance of 1164 KM within a period of one month.  Further, it is not disputed that the vehicle/scooter in question was out of warranty at the time of alleged seized of engine as the complainant purchased the same in the year 2010 which is evident from sale certificate Annexure R-8.

10                    In the circumstances noted above, as the complainant has totally failed to file any expert/ mechanic report to prove that the engine of the scooter/ Access in question was either seized or was seized due to negligence of the OP. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint.

11                    Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 21.06.2016.

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                      MEMBER