DATE OF FILING: 09.01.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 07.11.2017
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W):
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he handover his vehicle Maruti Swift VDI bearing Chassis No: MA3FHEBIS00261628, Engine No: D13A-1860030, Colour: Silky Silver -Z2S bearing Registration No: OR 07 AA 5949 to the O.P service showroom for maintenance on 26.10.2013 after occurrence of the super cyclone ‘Phailin’. Even after two months, the O.P. did not handover the said vehicle but instead demanded Rs.78,000/- on the pretext of replacement of different parts of the said vehicle. The complainant is not aware whether there was any replacement of different parts of the said vehicle was done or not. However, it is alleged that the complainant had handed over the said vehicle not for the purpose of replacing different parts but only for maintenance. The vehicle was hypothecated to a finance firm since the date of purchase and as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation; the complainant has to remit the regular monthly installments to the said firm. He has also alleged that even now, although said vehicle is with the O.P. from October 2013 but the complainant is deposits regular monthly installments without enjoying the comforts of the said vehicle. Moreover, the complainant has also approached to the O.P. in person to handover the vehicle but all went in vain. Due to delay beyond the period agreed to provide service to the complainant, the service of the O.P. is deficient and as such the complainant is suffering from irreparable financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment by the O.P. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the O.P. to handover the vehicle in question immediately to the complainant after proper maintenance in good condition and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with cost towards agonies suffered due to the negligence and deficiency in service and to discontinue unfair trade practice in the bests interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. appeared and filed version through his advocate. It stated in the written version that the complainant has filed this case on imaginary, speculative, frivolous and untenable allegations on untruthful claims not entitled under law and the same is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant’s car was submerged in the stagnated heavy cyclone rain water, coupled with mud, that lashed Berhampur in the Philin occurred on 12.10.2013 resulting the mud water gushed into the engine carbide and inside his car spoiling and damaging several parts of the engine, fitting, gear and steering system etc. causing it immobile and non-functional and thus after long lapse of time the complainant by toeing that car with the help of some other motor vehicle brought it to the workshop of the O.P. though there are other motor workshops including Maruti care at Berhampur, since the O.P. by then earned good repudiation for its sincere effective repair works. It is also contended that after the mechanic opened the engine, gear and steering system and connections, it made a list of required parts to substitute the damaged and rusted parts etc of that car estimating cost of the new parts etc. and estimated approximately at about Rs.78,700/- for repairing of the car and accordingly informed the complainant within a couple of days then requiring him to get such new parts by him or to pay Rs.78,700/- to the O.P. for supplying such parts etc and for carrying the needed cleaning, washing, repairing and replacements. The complainant has not paid or deposited estimated cost for his car repairing for a long period. When the complainant assured firmly on 5.1.2014 to pay the cost as estimated and later paid through IDBI Bank cheque No.029567 on 07.01.2014 and the O.P. delivered the car in tip top cleaned and in perfect running condition to the complainant on 07.01.2014 since by then the car was effected with the needed repairs, replacements with new parts and proper adjustments earlier to 07.01.2014. It is also submitted that the O.P. is not at all liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and has falsely claimed financial loss of Rs.78,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- which is untruthful and illegal. He also stated that the complainant is still to pay the balance account due of Rs.12,000/- to the O.P. and the complainant has filed this false case with hostile mind. The complainant has received his car after payment as submitted above and there is no deficiency in service hence the case may be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the O.P. was absent on repeated calls and in fact has remained absent consecutively from 14.07.2014 till date. In spite of several directions, he did not file written argument and not proceeded with the case for final hearing. Since this case is a year old case and the O.P. has remained absent since long, the Forum therefore, decided to dispose of the case on merit.
5. On merit, as per the complaint and on perusal of the materials available on the case record, the complainant took his vehicle for maintenance to the workshop of O.P. claimed to be on 26.10.2013 after Philin but in fact the acknowledgment slip shows that the vehicle was received by the O.P. service centre for maintenance on 26.12.2013 as is evident from Annexure-II filed by the complainant placed on the case record. Similarly, in this case the complainant has prayed for release of his vehicle after proper maintenance services and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00.000/- towards compensation and cost for delay released of the vehicle and unauthorized repairing of the said vehicle by O.P. workshop and to discontinue the unfair trade practice. On further perusal of materials, it reveals that the O.P. issued a bill for repairing charges of the said vehicle on 06.01.2014 for a sum of Rs.78,100/- along with Rs.600/- towards cost of the diesel and accordingly the complainant paid the amount through cheque No. 029567 for Rs.78,100/- dated 7.1.2014 along with Rs.600/- as cash and released the vehicle on 07.01.2014 as is evident from the memo filed by the complainant on 09.01.2014 placed on the case record. Since the vehicle of the complainant was duly released by the O.P. and it was accepted by the complainant without protest, the first prayer of the complainant is complied. With regard to second prayer i.e. for payment of compensation and cost for delayed released of the vehicle by the O.Ps and to discontinue the unfair trade practice, we would like to say that in this case the vehicle was taken to showroom as claimed by the complainant on 26.10.2013 but on perusal of the documents like Annexure–II filed by the complainant, the vehicle was received by the O.P. on 26.12.2013. It is also fact as revealed from the case record that the present case was filed on 26.12.23013 on the date of the vehicle was received by the O.P. for servicing. Under the above fact and circumstances and as per the documents available on record, it is clear that the case was filed in this Forum on the date on which the vehicle was received by the O.P. workshop for servicing. It is further evident from the case record that as per the job card report invoice a lot of parts were replaced by O.P. service centre and an amount of Rs.78,100 was spent towards repairing charges of the vehicle and total of about 15 days took the O.P. for repairing of the vehicle and to get it in good condition. From this it is established that there was no inordinated delay in releasing the vehicle of the complainant by the O.P. service centre after repairing. Hence, the O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation or cost since there is no delay on his part and no proved deficiency in service. The citations filed by the learned counsel for the complainant in the case of Lal Hira versus MGF Toyota Gurgaon Capital Vehicle Sales Ltd reported in III (2013) CPJ 28 (NC) is not at all applicable to the instant case due to distinguishable factual differences of both cases, since in the said case the O.P. had detained the vehicle for 7-8 years and the complainant had visited to the service centre of O.Ps for several times to release his vehicle but in this case there was no such delay on part of the O.P. and there is no proof on record that the complainant had visited the showroom of the O.P. time and again for a long period to get back his vehicle. So the said citation is not applicable to this case and rejected. In view of the above discussion and considering the fact and circumstances of the case, we feel that the case of the complainant bears no merit since there is no delay or deficiency in service for releasing the vehicle of the complainant by the O.P. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that he has received the vehicle in dispute after payment of Rs.78,600/- as discussed. In the light of foregoing discussion and considering the fact and circumstance of the case, we dismiss the case of the complainant against the O.P. due to devoid of merit.
6. In the result, the complaint of the complainant is ordered to be dismissed due to devoid of merit. No order as to cost and compensation.
7. The order is pronounced on this day of 7th November 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
