THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 75 of 2014
Date of Institution : 5.2.2014
Date of Decision : 12.10.2015
Rajinder Kumar S/o Kewal Krishan R/o village Rupowali Brahmin, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Auto Kruze through its Manager, G.T. Road, Jandiala Guru, Tehsil and District Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Kashmira Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rajinder Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased TATA Safari E-III bearing registration No. PB-10-BQ-0032 from Davinderpal Singh S/o Surinder Singh R/o 99, New Model Town, Ludhiana for Rs. 3,10,000/-. At the time of purchase, the comlainant paid Rs. 2,50,000/- and it was agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid by the complainant to said Davinderpal Singh on 20.12.2013 on the condition that he will hand over the original RC and also gave affidavit in favour of the complainant on 20.12.2013. The said agreement was written on 27.10.2013. At the time of said agreement, Davinderpal Singh handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the complainant. According to the complainant on 14.11.2013 he gave the vehicle in question for service to the opposite party and the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant after service, on receipt of the amount of service charges bill in the name of Adarshpal Singh, the previous owner of the said vehicle and when the complainant verified the bill and pointed out that Davinderpal Singh is owner of the said vehicle and requested the opposite party to issue the bill in the name of Davinderpal Singh, original ower of the vehicle, but the opposite party replied that the bill will not have any bearing in the ownership of the vehicle. The complainant submitted that he alongwith his father Kewal Krishan had gone from Jandiala to Rupowali Brahmin village on 15.11.2013 on the said vehicle which was being driven by driver Balbir Singh and father of the complainant was sitting on the front seat. When the vehicle was running on the road, left side wheel of the vehicle reared out as nut bolts of the wheel were not propely affixed by the opposite party while doing the service to the said vehicle as a result of which the vehicle over turned on road. After the said incident father of the complainant Kewal Krishan was seriously injured. The complainant and driver Balbir Singh also received multiple injuries. The police of P.S. Jandiala reached at the place of incident but did not take any action against the opposite party. The complainant and his father Kewal Krishan were admitted in Sareen Hospital and the father of the complainant died on 18.11.2013 at Sareen Hospital, Verka Road, Amritsar. The complainant also suffered serious injuries on backbone and has become permanently disabled. Driver Balbir Singh also suffered grievous injuries. The complainant is still under treatment as OPD patient at Sareen Hospital, Amritsar . The complainant spent huge amount on the medical treatment for himself and his father. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested him to pay compensation for the lapses while servicing the said vehicle. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather refused to pay any compensation to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 15 lacs i.e. for the death of his father Kewal Krishan and the grievous injuries suffered by the complainant due to the fault of the opposite party. Complainant also demanded Rs,. 3,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture, harassment , agony and financial loss . Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on the date of repair of the vehicle with the opposite party i.e. 14.11.2013 the vehicle was not registered in the name of the complainant. It was submitted that on 14.11.2013 vehicle Tata Safari came to the workship of the opposite party for running repairs after 97963 kms with complaint of brake grabbling/jam, brake insufficient and brake fluid leakage, thus brake disc as well as brake pads were replaced alongwith that reconditioning of rear wheel cylinder was done and the vehhicle was handed over to the person who brought the same to the workship, after drawing the bill in his name. It was denied that vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party on 14.11.2013 by the complainant. It was submitted that vehicle was handed over to its driver after proper road test and saisfaction of the driver. The vehicle had history of accidental repairs with DADA Motors Ltd on 20.4.2009 as well. It was denied that tyre of left side of the vehicle reared out as nuts and bolts of the wheels were not properly affixed on the left side of front seat during repair or that the vehicle overturned on road due to any fault of the opposite party and its passengers were seriously injured and received multiple injuries due to any fault of the opposite party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-31.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Rohit Kapoor, partner Ex.OP1, copy of certificate issued by Chartered Accountant of opposite party with regard to closure of work Ex.OP2, copy of service history of vehicle Ex.OP3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased second hand Tata Safari car bearing registration No. PB-10-BQ-0032 from one Davinderpal Singh of Ludhiana for a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to said Davinderpal Singh on 27.10.2013 and agreement dated 27.10.2013 Ex.C-1 was executed between the parties and it was agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid by the complainant to said Davinderpal Singh on 20.12.2013 on the condition that he would hand over the original RC and would also give affidavit in favour of the complainant on 20.12.2013. Davinderpal Singh handed over the possession of said Tata Safari vehicle to the complainant on 27.10.2013. On 20.12.2013 Davinderpal Singh gave affidavit to the complainant and the RC of the vehicle and the complainant paid the remaining amount to said Davinderpal Singh. Complainant alleges that on 14.11.2013 he gave the vehicle in question for service to the opposite party and the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant after service on receipt of the amount of service charges vide bill Ex.C-3. The complainant also got this bill from the opposite party regarding service of the vehicle in question in the name of Adarshpal Singh. The said bill is Ex.C-3. The complainant submitted that he alongwith his father Kewal Krishan had gone from Jandiala to Rupowali Brahmin village on 15.11.2013 on the said vehicle which was being driven by driver Balbir Singh and father of the complainant was sitting on the front seat. When the vehicle was running on the road, left side wheel of the vehicle reared out as nut bolts of the wheel were not propely affixed by the opposite party while doing the service to the said vehicle as a result of which the vehicle over turned on road. Consequently father of the complainant named Kewal Krishan was seriously injured. The complainant and driver Balbir Singh also received multiple injuries. The police of P.S. Jandiala reached at the place of incident but did not take any action against the opposite party. The complainant and his father Kewal Krishan were admitted in Sareen Hospital. However, father of the complainant died on 18.11.2013 at Sareen Hospital, Verka Road, Amritsar. Copy of report of death of Kewal Krishan is Ex.C-4 and death certificae of Kewal Krishan is Ex.C-5. The complainant also suffered serious injuries on backbone and has become permanently disabled. Driver Balbir Singh also suffered grievous injuries. The complainant is still under treatment as OPD patient at Sareen Hospital, Amritsar . The complainant spent huge amount on the medical treatment for himself and his father. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to pay compensation for the lapse/latches while servicing the said vehicle. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant rather refused to pay any compensation to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on 14.11.2013 vehicle Safari Car bearing registration No. PB10BQ0032 came to the workshop of opposite party for running repairs at running of 97963 Kms with complaint of brake grabbling/jam, brake insufficient and brake fluid leakage. Resultantly brake disc as well as brake pads were replaced alongwith reconditioning of rear wheel cylinder (each side) was done and the vehicle was handed over to the person, who brought the same to the workshop i.e. Adarshpal Singh. The opposite party denied that the vehicle was brought to the workshop of opposite party on 14.11.2013 by the complainant. The vehicle was handed over to its driver after proper road test and satisfaction of the driver. The vehicle had history of accidenal repair with Dada Motors Ltd on 20.4.2009 as well. Opposite party denied that wheel of the left side of the vehicle reared out as nuts and bolts of the wheel were not properly affixed during repair job done at opposite party workshop. They also denied that vehicle over turned on road due to any fault on the part of the opposite party. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complainant was neither owner of the vehicle in question on the date of accident nor he got repaired the vehicle in question from the opposite party as the same was got repaired by one Adarshpal Singh related to the owner of the vehicle namely Davinderpal Singh as is evident from the retail invoice Ex.C-3 produced by the complainant himself. The vehicle was also not insured at the time of alleged accident. The complainant has also failed to prove on record that the accident took place due to fault in the repairs of the vehicle by the opposite party on 14.11.2013. The agreement Ex.C-1 does not make the complainant as owner of the vehicle in question as RC of the vehicle was still in the name of Davinderpal Singh on the date of said accident. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party also submitted that complainant could not produce any certificate from the mechanic that this accident took place due to any fault in repairs of the vehicle done by the opposite party workshop on 14.11.2013. The alleged certificae of Prithipal Singh, Mechanic of Punjab Roadways,Amritsar dated 19.11.2013 Ex.C-26 is nothing but document created later on as this witness Prithipal Singh in his cross examination dated 8.7.2015 has admitted that he does not know punjabi. He gave this certificae only at the instance of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I Depot and he does not know what is written in this certificae Ex.C-26 because he does not know Punjabi. He further admitted that the vehicle was not dismantled in his presence. The wheel of the vehicle was already in dismantled condition when he inspected the vehicle on 16.11.2013 after the accident. He did not check the dismantled parts of the vehicle. He also stated that he does not know what is written in his affidavit Ex.CW3/A. He further admitted that the report Ex.C-26 was prepared after consultation with General Manager, Punjab Roadways , who is his Boss and under whose instructions he inspected the vehicle and he simply signed the report Ex.C-26 which was already got prepared by the General Manager and the General Manager wanted this witness to sign the report to oblige the owner of the vehicle for the reasons best known to him. So this report Ex.C-26 has been created by General Manager and this witness was influenced to sign this report and he does not know what is written in the report as the same is in Punjabi. So this report is not reliable. The complainant has failed to prove on record that the accident of the vehicle in question took place due to any fault in the repairs of the vehicle done by the opposite party workshop on 14.11.2013. As such opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant for the damages occurred to the complainant, as a result of the accident of the vehicle in question which occurred on 15.11.2013. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant alleges that he purchased second hand Tata Safari car bearing regisration No.PB-10-BQ-0032 from one Davinderpal Singh S/o Surinder Singh of New Model Town, Ludhiana for a consideration of Rs. 3,10,000/- and he paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to said Davinderpal Singh and they executed agreement dated 27.10.2013 Ex.C-1 vide which the parties agreed that the remaining/balance amount shall be paid by the complainant to said Davinderpal Singh on 20.12.2013 on the conditions that Davinderpal Singh will hand over the original RC and also give affidavit in favour of the complainant on 20.12.2013. But the complainant could not produce any writing or any document to prove that the complainant paid the balance amount i.e. Rs. 60000/- to said Davinderpal Singh on 20.12.2013 and Davinderpal Singh handed over the original RC to the complainant and also gave affidavit in favour of the complainant. The complainant neither examined said Davinderpal Singh owner of the vehicle in question nor filed any affidavit of said Davinderpal Singh , whether he sold the vehicle in question to the complainant and handed over its possession to the complainant on 27.10.2013. If said Davinderpal Singh had handed over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant on 27.10.2013 then why he did not give the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant because without RC vehicle cannot be plied on the road. This alleged agreement Ex.C-1 is also signed by three independent witnesses namely Roshan Lal S/o Rattan Lal, R/o Village Usma, Tehsil and Distt.Tarn Taran, second witness Paramjit Ex.Member Panchayat son of Hem Raj, Village Rupowali, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar and 3rd witness Diwan Singh s/o Dalip Singh Village Usma Tehsil and District Tarn Taran. But the complainant has also not examined any of these witnesses to prove this agreement . More over no prudent purchaser/person would take the vehicle without RC and without Insurance and other documents i.e. invoice, etc. from the original owner .So this agreement of sale appears to have been created later on just to create evidence. So this agreement is totally un-reliable as not valid/legal one.
9. Apart from this the complainant himself has produced a copy of purchase affidavit on duly stamped paper dated 31.12.2013 but the complainant has not intentionally exhibited this document nor produced the same in evidence. However, the same is on record which proves that the complainant purchased this vehicle from Davinderpal Singh on or after 31.12.2013. But that too also does not confirm the sale. However, it falsifies the agreement dated 27.10.2013 Ex.C-1.
10. Further, the complainant has submitted that he had given the said vehicle for service to the opposite party on 14.11.2013 and the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant after service. However, the complainant got issued service charges bill Ex.C-3 in the name of Adarshpal Singh, the previous owner and not in the name of the complainant. If the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 27.10.2013 and took the possession of the vehicle in question from the original owner Davinderpal Singh on 27.10.2013 , why he got the repair bill of the vehicle in question from the opposite party on 14.11.2013 in the name of Adarshpal Singh,
the previous owner nor the complainant has filed any affidavit of said Adarshpal Singh nor exmined said Adarshpal Singh rather this bill of repair charges Ex.C-3 proves that the vehicle in question was given for repair to the opposite party by said Adarshpal Singh and after repair the said vehicle was taken by Adarshpal Singh after payment of service charges, that is why this bill has been issued in the name of Adarshpal Singh i.e. original owner of the vehicle as stated by the complainant himself. Moreover the bill is issued in the name of the person, who makes the payment of service charges and to whom the possession of the vehicle is given by workshop after repair.
11. The complainant alleges that on 15.11.2013 the complainant alongwith his father Sh.Kewal Krishan was going from Jandiala to Rupowali Brahmin when the vehile was being driven by driver Balbir Singh and while running on the road the wheel of the left side reared out as nuts and bolts of the wheel were not properly affixed on the left side front wheel at the time of service of the said vehicle by the opposite party, as a result of which the said vehicle over turned on road. Father of the complainant Kewal Krishan was seriously injured whereas the complainant and driver Balbir Singh suffered multiple injuries. The complainant and his father were admitted in Sareen Hospital Verka Road, Amritsar . However, father of the complainant Sh. Kewal Krishan died on 18.11.2013 in that hospital. The complainant alleges that this accident took place due to rearing out of the left side front wheel of the vehicle as nuts and bolts of the wheel were not properly affixed by the opposite party while doing service of the said vehicle. In this regard the complainant produced on record photographs of the vehicle Mark C-23 to C-31 and a certificate from one Mr. Prithipal Singh, Mechanic ,Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I Depot Ex.C-26 dated 19.11.2013 who through this certificate stated that on 16.11.2013 he saw the vehicle Tata Safari car bearing registration No. PB-10-BQ-0032 which had met with an accident and struck into a tree and was damaged badly . This incident took place due to opening of nut bolts of the front wheel of the vehicle. This witness was cross examined by the opposite party on 8.7.2015 . In his cross examination dated 8.7.2015 this witness has admitted that he does not know Punjabi, as such he does not know what is written in this certificate Ex.C-26. He simply signed this certificate. He further admitted that he gave this certificate only at the instance of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I Depot. He further admitted that the vehicle was not dismantled in his presence. Alleged wheel of the vehicle was already in dismantled condition when he checked the vehicle on 16.11.2013 and that too after one day of the accident . He further admitted that he did not check the dismantled parts of the vehicle. He further admitted that this report Ex.C-26 was prepared after consultation with General Manager, Punjab Roadways, who is his Boss and under whose instructions he inspected the vehicle and he simply signed the report Ex.C-26 which was already got prepared by General Manager and General Manager wanted this witness to sign the report to oblige the owner of the vhicle for the reasons best known to him. This witness was under the influence of General Manager, Punjab Roadways ,Amritsar-I Depot as General Manager was his Boss and he had to give report as dictated by the General Manager. So this witness signed this report under the influence of his Boss , General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I,Depot that is why this witness has categorically admitted in his cross examination that he does not know what is written in the report as the same is in Punjabi and he was influenced to sign this report . Further the bare perusal of this report Ex.C-26 also proves that the date on this report was 19.11.2014. However, later on it was tampered with and changed to 19.11.2013. This plea that the vehicle was got checked from a mechanic of Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I, Depot on 16.11.2013 was not taken in the complaint by the complainant. Further, neither this report nor copy of this report was filed by the complainant with the complaint. It was produced in his Forum for the first time when the complainant led his evidence on 9.4.2015. All this fully proves that this report has been created lateron. Had this vehicle been got checked from this mechanic on 16.11.2013, why this report was prepared on 19.11.2014 which was later on changed to 19.11.2013 and then why this report was not pleaded in the complaint nor copy of the same was filed by the complainant with the complaint. All this fully proves that this report has been created later on as evidence, as such is totally un-reliable as not genuine one. Moreover, this mechanic cannot give report in private cases without the prior sanction or permission from Government or from the concerned department i.e. Transport Department.
12. Apart from this no complaint was lodged by the complainant with the police. It cannot be believed that a person has died as a result of accident because father of the complainant namely Kewal Krishan has expired as a result of such accident, the police did not take any action nor recorded even the DDR . Apart from this on the said date of accident i.e. 15.11.2013 neither the RC of the vehicle was in favour of the complainant nor the vehicle was insured in the name of any person even not in the name of original owner Davinderpal Singh or Adarshpal Singh nor the complainant has produced the original RC of Davinderpal Singh which he has alleged that said Davinderpal Singh gave the original RC to the complainant on 20.12.2013 on payment of balance amount by the complainant to said Davinderpal Singh. Further, as per the RC produced by the complainant Ex.C-2 nowhere it is written that when the said vehicle was transferred , who was the original owner . All this shows that the complainant was driving this vehicle without RC and without insurance.
13. From the entire above discussion, we have concluded that complainant has failed to prove on record that this accident took place due to fault in service of the vehicle done by the opposite party. As such we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
12.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
