DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/177

Date of Institution : 09.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 18.07.2022

Sham Sunder Khanna age 70 years son of Shri Ram Lubhaya Khanna, resident of 207, Gali No. 1, Green City, Pallah Sahib Road, Ajnala Road, Amritsar.  

  …Complainant

Versus

M/s. SV Motors through its Manager/Prop., GT Road, Near New Amritsar, Backside Novelty Hyundai, Amritsar. 

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date

Present: Sh. Arvinder Mahajan Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Mohan Arora Adv counsel for opposite party.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against SV Motors, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is owner of one limited addition car of Cheverlot Sail model February 2014 bearing registration No. PB-02-CH-1230 and opposite party is authorized service centre appointed by the company Cheverlot. The car of the complainant was damaged in an accident and front windshield, right side fander and right side indicator was damaged and complainant approached opposite party being authorized service centre of Cheverlot company for its repair. The car of the complainant was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited and bill of repair was to be claimed from the insurance company. The opposite party issued a repair order No. 1216 dated 19.2.2018 for the repair of front windshield, right side fander and right side indicator and besides this the opposite party further agreed to change the wiper blades of the front windshield. The complainant approached the opposite party on 24.2.2018 for the delivery of the car and at the time of delivery of the car when the complainant seen the repairs of the said car made by the opposite party he was astonished to see that the opposite party has painted the whole right side of the car which the complainant never asked to do nor it was mentioned in the repair order issued by the opposite party which has diminished the monetary value/resale of the car of the complainant. Due to this act of the opposite party the graphics value of Rs. 14,000/- was also removed by the opposite party without prior information and consultation of the complainant which caused lot of mental pain and hardship suffered by the complainant due to which the resale value of the car has also been decreased multiple times as the look of the car has totally been damaged by the opposite party. The complainant also protested before the opposite party and duly mentioned in the repair order in the column of remarks on 24.2.2018. The opposite party also charged Rs. 4,500/- illegally vide receipt No. 6641 dated 24.2.2018 from the complainant as the complainant is having cashless insurance of the car and he was not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant i.e. decrease resale value of the car of the complainant, to pay Rs. 14,000/- for the value of the graphics which has been removed by the opposite party, Rs. 4,500/- which has been illegally charged by the opposite party from the complainant. 

2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental pain and agony. 

3) To pay cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and present complaint is an abuse of the process of law. The complainant has given consent for the repair, painting work of the car in question and opposite party has experienced number of technicians, mechanics in its workshop and they do the work in perfect condition. The car was brought to workshop of opposite party in accidental condition by Mr. Pankaj Khanna for the repair work of the car. Accordingly, job card was duly issued in the name of the complainant and repair work including painting work was done on the basis of confirmation made on the job card. Since the car of the complainant was damaged in accident and it require denting and painting work on the door of the car so to paint the door effectively it was necessary to remove the graphics, otherwise paint work could not be done on the car of the complainant. 

4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is owner of the car in question and opposite party is authorized service centre of Chevrolet company. Accident of the car as well as insurance of the car is also admitted. It is admitted that repair order dated 19.2.2018 was issued. Besides front windshield, right side fander and right side indicator, doors of the car were also damaged which were also repaired by the opposite party. Job card was duly signed by the grand son of the complainant. For the painting work of the door of the car of the complainant it was very much necessary to remove the graphics so that painting work be done effectively without any fault. The grandson of the complainant has given consent to repair the car and to paint its door. It is admitted that opposite party charged Rs. 4,500/- from the complainant as repair invoice of Rs. 28,335/- was raised by the opposite party out of which insurance company has agreed to pay amount of Rs. 23,835/- and balance amount of Rs. 4,500/- was to be paid by the complainant and opposite party legally recovered from him. Rest of the submissions of the complaint are denied by the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and lastly prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.   

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of receipt Ex.C-1, copy of repair order dated 19.2.2018 Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of non warranty requisition Ex.C-4  and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP-1, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-2, copy of job card Ex.OP-3, copy of invoice Ex.OP-4, copy of vehicle history Ex.OP-5, copy of photographs Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully.

8. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant is owner of the car in question and the car was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant approached for repairing his accidental car and repair order dated 19.2.2018 was issued. The only dispute in the present complaint is that the opposite party has painted the whole right side of the car which the complainant never asked to do. The complainant further alleged that it is not mentioned in the repair order issued by the opposite party that the entire right side is required to be painted. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the opposite party issued repair order No. 1216 dated 19.2.2018 for the repair of front windshield, right side fander and right side indicator. The complainant alleged that due to this act of the opposite party the graphics value of Rs. 14,000/- also removed by the opposite party without prior information and consultation of the complainant. Another dispute alleged by the complainant in the complaint is that the opposite party also charged Rs. 4,500/- illegally vide receipt No. 6641 dated 24.2.2018 from the complainant as the complainant is having cashless insurance of the car and he was not liable to pay any amount to the opposite party.

9. On the other hand, the opposite party mentioned in the written version that as per repair order dated 19.2.2018 front windshield, right side fandor and indicator, doors of the car were also damaged which were also repaired by the opposite party. The opposite party also mentioned in the reply that the job order was duly signed by the grandson of the complainant. It is also mentioned in the written version that for the painting work of the doors of the complainant it is very much necessary to remove the graphics. The grandson of the complainant has given consent to repair and to paint its doors. The opposite party admitted in the written version that the opposite party has charged Rs. 4,500/- from the complainant as repair bill is of Rs. 28,335/- out of which insurance company has agreed to pay amount of Rs. 23,835/- and balance amount of Rs. 4,500/- was to be paid by the complainant and opposite party legally recovered the same from the complainant.

10. The complainant has produced the job order dated 19.2.2018 Ex.C-2 and same job order was produced by the opposite party as Ex.OP-3. On the perusal of the said job order it is mentioned in the column “Mark Dents and Paint Damage” regarding the rear door repair work and complainant also admitted that job order was issued. Complainant mentioned in the complaint that said job order was only issued for work of front windshield, right side fandor and indicator and besides this opposite party further agreed to change the wiper blades of the front windshield but complainant has not mentioned in complaint regarding the Sr. No. 1 in column “Mark Dents and Paint Damage” regarding rear door repair work. On the other hand opposite party clearly mentioned in  written version that doors of car were also damaged which were also repaired by the opposite party and grandson of the complainant has given consent to repair the car and to paint its door. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence vide which it established that the doors of the car were not damaged and the opposite party wrongly repaired the same. 

11. It is admitted by the opposite party that they have charged Rs. 4,500/- as the insurance company agreed to pay Rs. 23,835/- out of final repair bill of Rs. 28,335/- but the complainant has not impleaded the insurance company to recover the less claim amount. So, it established that opposite party has rightly charged Rs. 4,500/- and the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party regarding this dispute. 

12. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the opposite party charged Rs. 4,500/- as per invoice and rightly do the work as per the repair order dated 19.2.2018, so we found no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        18th Day of July 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

 

              (Urmila Kumari)

Member