Tripura

StateCommission

A/17/2019

Shri Gathan Datta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Progressive Automobile Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Haradhan sarkar

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.17.2019

 

 

1. Shri Gathan Datta,

S/o Late Ratish Ch. Datta,

Village: Betaga, P.O. Betaga,

P.S. Santirbazar, District - South Tripura.

[Owner of Hydraulic Tripper Vehicle (Truck) TR-03 B - 1570]

 

… … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

Vs

 

1. M/s Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Represented by its General Manager, Service,

Math Choumohani, Jail Road, Banamalipur,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, 

District - West Tripura - 799001.

… … … … Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

 

PRESENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                        Mr. Haradhan Sarkar, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                     Mr. Subhajit Paul, Adv.

Date of Hearing:                                           28.08.2019.

Date of Delivery of Judgment:                        04.10.2019.

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Shri Gathan Datta (hereinafter referred to as complainant) against the judgment dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No.C.C.33 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition directing the complainant to arrange for taking his Hydraulic Tripper Vehicle (Truck) TR-03 B 1570 back from the workshop of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) within three weeks from the date of judgment, failing which, he will be liable to pay Rs.500/- per day to the opposite party as parking charge.       

2. Heard Mr. Haradhan Sarkar, Ld. Counsel has appeared for the appellant-complainant as well as Mr. Subhajit Paul, Ld. Counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent-opposite party.
3. The instant appeal was heard on 28.08.2019 and the judgment was reserved.
4. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant is the owner of the vehicle (Hydraulic Tripper) bearing No.TR-03 B - 1570. The aforesaid vehicle was placed in running condition at the workshop of the opposite party, M/s Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on 04.04.2016 with complain of excessive intake of mobile. The opposite party assured the complainant that the problem will be rectified. It is also stated in the complaint petition that in spite of the assurance of the opposite party, his vehicle was not attended to even though he had visited the workshop twenty times on different occasions. On 15.05.2017, the opposite party issued a letter by referring the Job Card No. JC-PrgAut-AP1-1617-000018 dated 04.04.2016 informed him that his vehicle got checked, but the problems in the vehicle could not be rectified on account of non approval from his end of the estimated bill of Rs.1,08,000/- even after information given to him several times. By this letter, the opposite party also informed the complainant that there was space constrains in his workshop and it is necessary on the part of the complainant to take back the vehicle without delay. The opposite party further informed the complainant that he would require to pay Rs.500/- per day as parking charge w.e.f. July, 2016 and that the total parking charge comes to Rs.1,57,500/-. The opposite party also informed the complainant that any damage caused to his vehicle shall be entirely at his cost and that no liability/responsibility in this regard can be fixed upon the opposite party. In response to the said letter of the opposite party, the complainant on 30.03.2018 issued a letter to the opposite party intimating him that when his vehicle was placed at the garage of the opposite party it had problem of consumption of excessive mobile and that there was no other complain in his vehicle. He further stated in his letter that from 04.04.2016 to 15.05.2017 the opposite party did not inform him about the parking charge to be levied @ Rs.500/- per day and that due to non-utilization of his vehicle, he had to incur loss amounting to Rs.2,000/- per day being the hiring charges of his vehicle and thus the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.6,30,000/- to him in addition to other damages caused to the vehicle. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that on 16.04.2018, the opposite party sent an e-mail intimating him about the estimated cost of repairing charge of his vehicle as Rs.1,57,500/- whereas by the letter dated 15.05.2017, the opposite party had demanded Rs.1,08,000/- for the said purpose. The complainant became confused as to what is the correct figure. The complainant again asserted in his complaint that he is to maintain his family depending upon the income from his vehicle. The complainant further alleged in his complaint petition that he made several attempts to resolve the issue with the opposite party over phone, but all his attempts went in vain as neither the opposite party nor his staff was willing to talk to him.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of the opposite party, the complainant filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum claiming Rs.14,78,000/- being the hiring charges w.e.f. 04.04.2016 to 13.04.2018 @ Rs.2,000/- per day, Rs.4 lac being other damages caused to his vehicle due to non attending the problem of his vehicle, Rs.30,000/- being compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation, in total Rs.19,23,000/- from the opposite party.
6. The opposite party, M/s Progressive Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on receipt of the notice from the learned District Forum appeared and filed his written statement refuting the claims and allegations of the complainant. The opposite party denied the assertion of the complainant that at the time of placing the vehicle TR-03 B-1570 of the complainant it had minor problem, rather according to the opposite party, the said vehicle had many other problems and defects which had arisen due to mishandling of the said vehicle and that the complainant had been duly intimated by the opposite party about the same. The opposite party further stated in his written statement that he had verbally intimated the complainant that the estimated cost of repairing charge of the vehicle would be done after opening the affected parts and machinery of the vehicle. At this the complainant asked for few days time to think over the matter and had assured the opposite party that he would contact the opposite party and convey his decision as to whether he would get the repair work done by the opposite party or not. The opposite party denied the assertion of the complainant about his visiting the workshop of twenty times on different occasions. The opposite party further stated in his written statement that when he found the complainant was sleeping over the issue, he on 15.07.2017 issued a letter to the complainant intimating him about the estimated bill for repairing the vehicle of the complainant. The opposite party again asserted that by his letter dated 15.05.2017 he has rightly demanded the parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day against the vehicle from the complainant. According to the opposite party, the complainant without any justifiable ground had demanded Rs.2,000/- per day from him as hiring charges of the vehicle from 04.04.2016 to 15.05.2017 as according to the opposite party, the complainant was himself responsible for the delay and that for his own lapses his vehicle having been parked in the garage. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Mr. Sarkar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant-complainant while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment and also prayed for allowing the complaint petition would contend that the learned District Forum ought to have consider that the vehicle in question is the only source of income of the appellant-complainant and for keeping the said vehicle in the garage of the respondent-opposite party without repairing the vehicle for about one year under open sky leading to financial loss and mental agony of the appellant. His further contention was that the complainant visited the workshop of the opposite party on twenty times on different occasions, but the learned District Forum ought to have considered that there is no ground for the abnormal delay of one year for repairing of the vehicle even after repeated visit of the complainant. He further submits that since the vehicle was placed to the custody of the opposite party it is the duty of the opposite party to look after the vehicle and to keep in a place under shade but the said vehicle was kept months after months under open sky. Thus, the respondent-opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the deficiency of service. He has finally contended that the respondent-opposite party did never inform his claims earlier in so far as it relates to alleged parking charge @Rs.500/-. Thus, the opposite party cannot ask for parking charge as raised in his letter.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Paul, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum rightly held that the complainant was not diligent to his vehicle after placing the same in the garage of the opposite party for repairing. He has again submitted that the complainant did never come forward for giving approval to the estimated amount raised by the opposite party for getting the vehicle repaired by him as the complainant was slept over the matter for more than one year and as such the opposite party having found no other alternative issued the letter dated 15.05.2017 requesting the complainant to accord approval to the estimated bill of Rs.1,08,000/- so as to enable the opposite party to carry out the repairing work. According to him, there were no lapses for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  
9. The learned District Forum upon hearing the parties held, inter alia, that “On perusal of the complaint, the written objection there too and the evidence adduced by both sides we find that the Complainant had placed his Hydrolic Tripper vehicle (Truck) in the workshop of the O.P. for repairing on 04/04/2016 but the Complainant did not enquire about it until the O.P. on 15/05/2017 issued a letter to the Complainant urging him to accord approval of the estimated amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to execute the repairing work and demanding Rs.1,57,500/- as parking charge. Though the complainant asserted in his complaint as well as in his examination-in-chief that he had visited the workshop of the O.P. 20 times before 15/05/2017 insisting on repairing his vehicle by the O.P., but complainant did not mention either in his complaint petition or in his evidence-in-chief as to which dates and time he had visited the workshop of the O.P. The Complainant did not adduce any cogent evidence in this regard. We also find that the Complainant did not produce the job card which had been admittedly issued by the O.P. at the time of placing his vehicle in the workshop of the O.P. Had the job card been produced, we could have apprised ourselves regarding the nature and details of work which was supposed to be taken up by the O.P. Withholding of the job card as evidence by the Complainant compels us to draw adverse inference against the Complainant. It is further evident that it is not a case where the Complainant can take the plea of his vehicle becoming multifunctional within period of warranty so as to bring the O.P. under obligation to do the repairing work which would have been his liability. It further reveals from the case record that the Complainant did not make any advance payment to the O.P. for carrying out the repairing work.

The Complainant took the plea that he had been suffering financial loss on account of his vehicle remaining unattended at the workshop of the O.P. But the Complainants aloofness and his sluggishness about dealing with his vehicle do not indicate that he was at all bother about his vehicle. The Complainant according to us should have been diligent to get the repairing work done by the O.P. either by giving approval to the estimated cost of repairing charges raised by the O.P. or by making advance payment of it to the O.P.

We find the Complainant all throughout been lackadaisical in his approach for getting his vehicle repaired by the O.P.

On the aforementioned grounds it is construed that the O.P. cannot be held guilty of deficiency of service” 

10. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment. According to us, the learned District Forum rightly held that the complainant has failed to establish his case before the learned District Forum and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party which would be evident from the aforesaid findings of the learned District Forum. Thus, no interference is called for.

In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura