Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/389

Navpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sai Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Surinder Singh

05 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:389 dated 19.08.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 05.01.2024.

 

Navpreet Singh aged about 30 years, Advocate son of S. Sukhdev Singh, Chamber No.536, 5^th Floor, Lawyers Chambers Complex, District Courts, Ludhiana, resident of House No.243, Street No.3, Mohalla Nanaksar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Sai Motors, 3258, Block-22, Opposite Grewal Hospital, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/Officer Incharge.                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Rachin Soni, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of motorcycle make Hero Splendor Pus bearing registration No.PB-10GL-0758. On 06.07.2021, he took his motor cycle to Service centre of OP for service and handed over the vehicle to service advisor of the OP by stating that the motorcycle automatically gets off while plying, who gave an estimate of Rs.1891/- with assurance to take delivery in the evening. The complainant stated that in the evening on 06.07.2021, he took the delivery of motorcycle and made payment of Rs.1891/- through UPI and he was issued invoice No.10976CG21V4438 dated 08.07.2021. OP also charged Rs.930/- extra for service card. The complainant was assured that the problem of stopping of vehicle while plying has been resolved. According to the complainant when he started plying the motor cycle, he noticed same complaint that it switched off/stopped working on the way. On 07.07.2021, the complainant travelled to District Courts, Hoshiarpur on motorcycle to attend an urgent case but due to said complaint, he had to park the motorcycle near P.S. Haibowal and had to arrange another motorcycle. The complainant got late and he could not appear in the court in time and case was adjourned for long date. In the evening on 07.07.2021, the complainant again took his motorcycle with service centre of OP with the same problem and at that time the service adviser of the OP  told him that there is a defect in the plug and changed the plug of the bike by charging Rs.90/-vide invoice No.10976CG21V4440 dated 08.07.2021. However, when the complainant started plying the motorcycle, the defect in the vehicle had not yet been resolved/serviced. Then he showed his motorcycle to one outside mechanic who told that the complaint in the motorcycle is due to negligence of service centre mechanics of the OP. The complainant again visited service centre of the OP where service advisor of the OP proclaimed that the complainant is pretending about the complaint in the motorcycle, whereas there is no such complaint. The complainant further stated that the act and conduct on the part of the OP amounts to deficiency in service due to which he has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment etc. for which OP is liable to compensate him. The complainant sent legal notice dated 14.07.2021 to the OP through registered post to which the OP sent an evasive reply. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OP to cure/remove the defect in the motorcycle and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of concealment of material and necessary information; lack of cause of action; the complaint being an abuse of process of law etc. The opposite party stated that the complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The complainant never turned up for further inspection of the vehicle.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OP admitted the issuance of invoice for the job work but stated that it is the sweet will of the customer to get the annual service card with 3 services or to refuse the same. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 07.07.2021 for Rs.930/-, Ex. C2 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 08.07.2021 for Rs.1891/-, Ex. C3 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 08.07.2021 for Rs.90/-, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 14.07.2021, Ex. C5 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. C6 is the copy of reply to legal notice, Ex. C7 is the copy of Tax Invoice dated 06.08.2017 of Rs.49,892/-, Ex. C8 is the copy of orders of the court of Ms. Kiran Bala, Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Authorized signatory of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 is the Authority letter, Ex. R2 is the copy of vehicle history card dated 08.07.2021, Ex. R3 is the copy of job card detail and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.      

6.                The complainant, an Advocate by profession and registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10GL-0758 experienced snag in the motorcycle on being stopped at once while running and hired the service of the OP for its repair. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1891/- as repair charges and the OP also prevailed upon the complainant to take annual service package for 3 free services and also charged Rs.930/- vide receipt Ex. C1. However, the defect in the motorcycle remained unresolved and on the following day i.e. 07.07.2021, when the complainant was on his way to District Courts, Hoshairpur in connection with an urgent case, the motorcycle stopped at once. The motorcycle was again brought to the service centre of the OP where the mechanic discovered it to be case of defective plug only. The plug was replaced and the OP charged Rs.90/- vide receipt Ex. C3. It is evident that this minor defect could have been easily remedied by the OP on 06.07.2021 but instead OP sold its products of Rs.1323.75 and charged labour charges to the tune of Rs.567/- total Rs.1891/- vide receipt Ex. C2 and also thrusted annual service package of Rs.930/- upon the complainant. The complainant served legal notice Ex. C4 upon the OP and the same was replied vide Ex. C6 and the operative part of the reply Ex. C6 is reproduced as under:-

“This is regarding legal notice sent by you, in which you wrote that you came to our workshop on dated 06.07.2021 to check suddenly engine cut off issue in your bike bearing regd. No.PB10GL-0758. But your issue not get resolved after the service. Sir we feel regret for that. You are our old customer. On previous occasions we always extended full support to you we have always sorted out issues reported by you.

If you still facing any issue in performance of vehicle, I would request to please bring the vehicle for thorough inspection and repair(if required) to the workshop at Gill Road, Ludhiana.”

 

Perusal of this reply to the notice shows that the OP has admitted that the issue with regard to sudden engine cut off could not be resolved on that day and they also apologized for the same. The act and conduct of the OP amounts to rendering of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on its part. In the given circumstances, this Commission is of the view that it would be just and appropriate if the OP is burdened with composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

7.                As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite party shall pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Sanjeev Batra)                      Member                                  President   

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.01.2024.

Gobind Ram.