Haryana

Panchkula

CC/314/2020

SH DEV KUMAR AIRON. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VEE AUTO . - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

02 Mar 2022

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	314 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	12.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	02.03.2022

 

Sh. Dev Kumar  Airon, S/o Sh. Hari Chand, 68 years, House No.160, Sector-25, Panchkula,                                                                                                                                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

 

M/s Vee Auto, Plot No.1A, Industrial Area II, Panchkula(Through Sh. Herman)

                                                                          ....Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.   

None for OP(Defence of OPs already struck off vide order dated 15.04.2021).

 

ORDER

 

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)        

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that on the morning of 04.08.2020 the complainant’s Hyundai Verna Car No.HR-03-Q-2686 failed to start at village Mahesh Pur, Panchkula as its clutch stopped working. The complainant informed the OP at mobile no. 6284407375 and the OP sent a mechanic Sh. Inder Pal who examined the problem and informed that the car’s clutch cylinder assembly needs replacement. Sh. Inder Pal arranged the needed component. He informed that the car AC assembly needs to be detached for said repairs and that its gas will be lost in the process. The complainant had no option but to agree. The repairs were carried out by the mechanic. The OP charged Rs.7,111/- from the complainant for the clutch cylinder and Rs.800/- for labour. Total Rs.7,911/-were charged for the clutch cylinder assembly. The complainant took the car to the work shop of the OP next day on 05.08.2020 and got the gas refilled for which he was charged Rs.1040/-. Further, the car was once taken to local market one km away. It was again taken to Sector-28, Panchkula on 15.09.2020. This return trip was about 10 km. The car developed the same clutch fault by the time he reached home and he informed the OP at his number 9872200066. The OP sent the same mechanic Sh.Inder Pal the following day. On 21.09.2020 the complainant drove the car to visit in MDC area and on returning the car again developed the same clutch problem after about 9 km, one km before my residence. It had to be left on the road and he walked back to home.  The car started next day after it cooled down and he took the car to the workshop of the OP on 22.09.2020 but OP gave a huge estimate of Rs.19,500/- for additional repairs. Not being satisfied the complainant took the car to the Hyundai Car Company’s authorised work shop ‘Ultimate Automobiles’ and the new clutch cylinder installed by the OP on 04.08.2020 completely broke down, even though the car was sparingly used due to Covid pandemic. The Ultimate Automobiles charged Rs.6457 (including GST Rs.2824/-) for the master clutch cylinder as against as Rs.7111/- by the OP. Further, the car had to be taken to the company’s authorised work shop Ultimate Automobiles as the OP had fitted a substandard component and moreover gave an exorbitant estimate of Rs.19500/- for subsequent repairs. M/s Ultimate Automobiles charges a total of Rs.10210 including for the broken component supplied by the OP. Thus the net extra bill was only Rs.3753(10210-6457) for which the OP had given an estimate of Rs.19500/-. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP did not file the written statement despite availing several opportunities including the last opportunity. Therefore, the defence of OP was struck off by this Commission, vide its order dated 15.04.2021. 

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed his evidence by making a separate statement. 

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             The deficiencies and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops has been alleged by the complainant on several counts.

6.             The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP had installed a defective and sub-standard cultch cylinder assembly in his car bearing no.HR03Q2686 and charged Rs.8,091/- vide bill dated 04.08.2020(Annexure C-1). The OP has failed to file the written statement rebutting and controverting the contentions of the complainant with regard to the installation of defective and sub-standard cultch cylinder assembly  in his car and its defence was struck off vide order 15.04.2021. The complainant has corroborated and substantiated by filing his affidavit Annexure C-A, bill dated 04.08.2020(Annexure C-1), 05.08.2020(Annexure C-2), call details (Annexure C-3 & C-4).

7.             Having perused the bill dated 05.08.2020(Annexure C-2) as well as the bill dated 05.10.2020(Annexure C-5) issued by Ultimate Private Ltd., it is found that  kilometer reading was 46724 and 46829 respectively and thus, the car had covered a distance of  105km only after the installation of cultch cylinder assembly in the car by the OP. Moreover, during the relevant period, the movement of traffic was also restricted on account of COVID-19 situation. The cultch cylinder assembly became defective in a very short period after its installation in the car by the OP. We are convinced that the car broke down twice on the way as alleged by the complainant on account of defects in the clutch cylinder assembly. As per car details contained in Annexure C-3 & C-4, it is evident that the complainant contacted the concerned mechanic of the OP several times on account of occurrence of defect in the clutch cylinder assembly of the car but as per version of the complainant, which are unrebutted and uncontroverted, a demand of Rs.19,000/- was raised by the mechanic of the OP. Since the cultch cylinder assembly of the car was necessitated to be replaced within a very short period, the allegations of the complainant stands proved that the OP had installed a defective and sub-standard clutch cylinder assembly in the car.

                The next grievance of the complainant is that he had been wrongly charged a Rs.1,040/- on account of gas refilling of the air-conditioner. This grievance does not seem to be genuine as the car AC assembly was detached from the car with the consent of the complainant and further, it was required to be detached in order to replace clutch cylinder assembly of the car.

                The next plea of the complainant is that the OP did not issue the proper tax invoice on the lines of M/s Ultimate Auto Mobiles which had charged a sum of Rs.2,824/- as GST. The allegation of the complainant is correct as the OP has not submitted any tax invoice on record.

                The last allegation of the complainant is that he had to incur extra repair charges amounting to Rs.2587.49plus28%GST Rs.724.36 plus labour. As per estimate Annexure C-1, a sum of Rs.7,011/- plus Rs.800/- has been shown to have been raised/charged by OP on account clutch cylinder and labour respectively whereas as per invoice (Annexure C-5) M/s Ultimate Auto Pvt. Ltd. a sum of Rs.4657.81+387 &  Rs. 2587.49+258= 7890.3 has been shown and thus, a sum of Rs.79/- in excess of Rs.7011+800=7811/- and in this manner, the allegation of the complainant is not found correct.

9.             As discussed above, the complainant had to suffer discomfort and inconvenience on account of the break-down of the car twice on the way and further, he could not utilize the facility of the said car as the car had to be kept in the custody of M/s Ultimate Auto Pvt. Ltd. for several days; so he is entitled to relief. In our opinion, the complainant deserves to the refund of Rs.7,811/- on account of installation of defective and sub-standard clutch cylinder assembly in his car. 

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with following directions:-

1. The OP is directed to refund of Rs.7,811/- @ 9% interest per annum to the complainant w.e.f date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. The OP is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.  

 

11.            The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:02.03.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal         

          Member                         Member                       President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                     Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                            

  Member