BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, MOGA.
Complaint No. 15 of 2015
Instituted On: 12.02.2015
Decided On: 19.02.2015
Jinderpal Singh aged 43 years son of Sh. Ganga Dass resident of H.No. 222
Ward No. 16, Gali No.6, Basti Sadha Wali, Tehsil and Distt. Moga.
………Complainant
Versus
M/S Ramuwalia Motors Garage, Kotkapura Road, Lal Singh Chowk, Moga through owner Davinder Singh son of Harbans Singh.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
****
Coram: Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Smt Vinod Bala, Member
Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member
Present: Complainant in person
C.C.No. 15 of 2015 //2//
ORDER
(S.S.Panesar, President)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against M/S Ramuwalia Motors Garage, Kotkapura Road, Lal Singh Chowk, Moga through owner Davinder Singh son of Harbans Singh (herein-after referred to as ‘opposite party’) directing him to refund Rs.19,935/-, which were received from the complainant as price of spare parts as well as labour, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension & harassment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was the registered owner of TATA A.C.E. bearing registration No.PB13U-9040. It has been alleged that the complainant brought his vehicle to the opposite party for the purpose of overhauling the engine of the vehicle in question on 01.01.2015. The opposite party charged a sum of Rs. 17,135/- from the complainant as price of spare parts as well as labour. However, instead of issuing the bill of Rs.17,135/-, the opposite party issued a bill bearing No.170 for Rs.2550/- only on its letter pad. The opposite party also gave a guarantee for a period of six months on the replaced parts and also assured that the replaced spare parts were of original quality. It has been further alleged that on 12.01.2015, the complainant was coming with his loaded vehicle from Moga to Nakodar and when he reached near Shahkot, the vehicle in question became defective. The complainant brought his vehicle
C.C.No. 15 of 2015 //3//
to M/S Bansal Motor Garage, Moga Road, Shahkot (Jalandhar) with the help of another vehicle, where on opening the gear box, the complainant found that the spare parts, which were replaced by the opposite party, were not of the original quality as assured by him at the time of replacing. The complainant had to spend Rs.2800/- more for further repair. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested him to refund Rs.19,935/-,which were wrongly and illegally received from him for the purpose of repair. But all in vain. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from mental and physical harassment besides economic loss. Hence the present complaint.
3. Heard on question of admission.
4. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No. PB13U-9040, Model 2007 TATA A.C.E. repaired and paid a sum of Rs 17,135/- to the opposite party as price of spare parts as well as labour. The opposite party issued bill bearing No.170 on its letter pad for a sum of Rs.2550/- only. The opposite party returned the vehicle after making repairs to the complainant on 8.01.2015 and gave warranty for a period of six months and it further assured the complainant that original spare parts have been used while making repair. However, on 12.01.2015, the complainant was coming from Moga to Nakodar in the aforesaid vehicle and when he reached near Shahkot, the vehicle again broke down. The complainant took his vehicle with the help of another vehicle to Bansal Motors Garage, Moga Road, Shahkot, where on opening
C.C.No. 15 of 2015 //4//
the gear box, it came to know that the spare parts replaced by the opposite party, were of duplicate quality. The complainant had to get those spare parts i.e. clutch plate, pressure plate replaced again after paying a sum of Rs.2800/- to the workshop. It is stated that the opposite party was deficient in service and the complainant had to suffer mental as well as economic loss on account of that.
5. However, in our considered opinion, the complainant has not proved himself to be a consumer as required under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The alleged bill produced by the complainant bearing No.170 is undated and the same does not conform to the legal requirement of a valid bill. Even so called warranty/guarantee allegedly given by the opposite party did not see the light of the day in the Forum. When quizzed further, the complainant stated that the warranty in dispute was oral in nature and no warranty/guarantee in writing was given. The complainant has also failed to produce any expert opinion regarding duplicate spare parts alleged used by the opposite party at the time of repair of vehicle. Even those duplicate spare parts were not produced before the Forum for getting those verified from some expert at the behest of this Forum. Simply because the complainant got the vehicle repaired from the opposite party or that after a few days of the alleged service, the vehicle again broke down, it cannot be presumed that the repairs done by the opposite party were deficient, rendering the complainant to file complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has to
C.C.No. 15 of 2015 //5//
show that he is a consumer under the opposite party or that the services rendered by it were deficient. However, in the instant case, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the basic requirement for filing a complaint before this Fora. In our considered opinion, instant complaint cannot proceed further. As such the same is ordered to be dismissed in limine. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:19.02.2015.
