Complainant Narinder Singh Sidhu has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party no.1 to do needful in the matter and handover his vehicle after its repair immediately. Opposite party no.1 be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

 2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a Chief Engineer (Mechanical) by profession and is on active service. He is registered owner of Captiva LT (Model 2008) bearing Registration No.PB-18-N-0078. Due to some problems in the engine of Car,  he approached the opposite party no.1 alongwith his car for its check up on 8.6.2016, where he was informed by the engineers of the opposite party no.1 that overhauling of the engine is required and the list of spare parts required was also shown by the opposite party no.1 to him. On the advice of the opposite party no.1, he handed over his vehicle to them on the same day on 8.6.2016. They assured to repair the vehicle within one week. Thereafter, he made several visits to the premises of opposite party no.1 for taking back his vehicle but the opposite party no.1 always put the matter pending with one or the other excuse. He has further pleaded that on 6.7.2016 the opposite party no.1 demanded Rs.20,000/- from him as advance for spare parts which he also paid on the same day. The opposite party no.1 assured that the spare parts will be available within a week but till date his vehicle is lying with the opposite party no.1 without any repair and off road. He had been approaching the opposite party no.1 time and again and opposite party no.1 is always lingering the matter by saying that the spare parts are coming next week but of no use. His vehicle is lying parked in the premises of the opposite party no.1 off road for a period of more than two months. Till today he had spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- on taxi till now, for no fault on his part. He has also brought this matter to the notice of the opposite partyno.2 vide his application dated 8.8.2016 and also given subsequent reminder on 16.8.2016, but till today no action into the matter has been taken. It is case of clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has concealed material facts from this Hon’ble Forum at the time of filing the present complaint. Actually, the complainant brought the vehicle in the workshop of opposite parties and after the checking of vehicle and removing all the faults upto the satisfaction of complainant, the vehicle was got repaired. There is no delay on the part of opposite party and the complainant even did not utter a single word when he took the vehicle from the workshop of opposite party. The complainant checked the vehicle and after being satisfied and clearing his doubts took the vehicle; the present complaint is false, frivolous and fled only to harass the opposite party and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, all averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.        Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.9.2016.

5.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/5 and closed the evidence.

7.        We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some of the documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute had prompted at the non-delivery by the opposite parties (both the OP1 & the OP2) of the complainant’s vehicle as per the scheduled-time (after the paid repairs). The defunct vehicle was admittedly delivered for repairs to the OP1 workshop on 08.06.2016 with an advance demand repair amount of Rs 20,000/- having paid on 06.07.2016 but the repaired Car was delivered back after 2½ months only on 25.08.2016 and that too after the filing of the instant complaint on 19.08.2016. In the meantime, the complainant has indeed suffered inconvenience and monetary loss etc and has presently claimed litigation-cost and compensation for the harassment inflicted upon him. We further find that the OP1 workshop has failed to plead/put forth on records any sufficient and satisfactorily cogent cause for the delayed delivery of the repaired Car whereas the OP2 manufacturer have preferred to stay absent and instead suffer exparte proceedings.

8.       The complainant has pleaded (sans any cogent rebuttal by the opposite parties) that he has invariably suffered much inconvenience and discomfort while travelling to attend to his professional work coupled with substantial monetary loss to the tune of Rs.1.0 Lac along with a loss of ‘social-status’ by continuously hiring Public Taxi/ Transport etc for the full intervening period of 2½ months. All other collateral documents as produced by the litigants during the present proceedings have been found to be of much relevance to the present prime issue of cost and compensation only.

9.       We also find here that the OP1 has not even filed an affidavit to support its written reply and even has surely much procrastinated placement of its evidence on records even after having availed repeated adjournments for the purpose for unexplained reasons and that surely raises an adverse judicial presumption. Lastly, from the documentary evidence as available on the record proceedings, we find that the ‘deficiency in service’ by way of ‘delayed delivery’ (of the repaired Car) by the OP1 workshop stands duly proved and that rakes it up for an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled OP1 vendor-workshop to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the delayed delivery of repaired Car/monetary loss incurred besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment. 

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

December,27 2016                                                                     Member

*MK*