Delhi

North East

CC/349/2013

Shri Kanchan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 349/13

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Kanchan Singh (deceased through LRS Shashi Bala (wife ), Jyoti Rani, Puja Rani and Versha Gautam (daughters) and Mukul Kumar (son) ) R/o. A2/228, East Gokalpur, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
		Ms. T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt Ltd. East Gokulpur, Main Wazirabad Road Delhi 110094		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		29.11.2013
			RESERVED FOR ORDER:		23.05.2018
			DATE OF DECISION:		01.06.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The complainant had submitted that he was the owner of Maruti EECO car bearing registration no. DL-8CW-0593 and the said car was hit by a tanker on 12.10.2012 at about 11.40 p.m., when the driver of the car of the complainant was returning to the house after getting the CNG filled up and due to the said hit by the tanker, the car of the complainant was very badly damaged but no police complaint was registered as no one was injured in the accident. It has been stated further that the said above car was taken to the workshop of OP for its repairing and on inspection of the said car, an oral and rough estimate for repairing charges was given by OP to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- subject to complainant giving his concurrence and permission for its repair which the complainant gave for the said amount. It has been stated further that the above car of the complainant was repaired by the OP and a bill of Rs. 3,27,000/- approx was raised and after seeing the said bill dated 13.10.2012 issued by OP, the complainant was shocked as the OP had not disclosed to the complainant about such huge expenses and he could have purchased a new car  of same model with that amount of repair. Moreover, had the complainant disclosed such a huge expense, the complainant would not have given his consent for repair and the complainant therefore alleged that the OP has misguided the complainant with malafide intention and ulterior motive. The complainant has further alleged that the OP asked the complainant, to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,43,000/- and only after receiving the said amount, they would release the said car of complainant as they would get the remaining amount from the insurance company. It has been submitted by the complainant that the car was still lying in the custody of OP and the same has not yet been handed over to the complainant because of non-payment of highly illegal and unlawful amount. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP several times for the release of said vehicle but the vehicle was not released. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.07.2013 to the OP by post, which was duly served upon the OP but instead of complying with the said legal notice, the OP had given a false and baseless reply. The complainant has alleged that he had suffered great mental pain and agony as well as financial loss due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP and the car of the complainant was still lying with the OP without any rhyme and reason. Keeping in view the above, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed to this Forum to direct the OP to release the car of the complainant and waive off the alleged bill and also to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 /- as compensation to the complainant for the financial loss, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2.  The complainant has attached a copy of legal notice dated 30.07.2013 addressed to OP, copy of estimate dated 13.10.2012, copy of letter addressed to complainant by the OP dated NIL intimating the complainant to take the delivery of his car on payment of Rs. 43,768/- towards running repair amount and Rs. 2,05,455/- towards body repair invoice amount failing which Rs. 150/- per day shall be levied on him as parking charges payable to OP. In addition to above an invoice dated 13.10.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,500/- as crane charges for towing services from Bhopura to T.R. Sawhney, Gokulpur, Delhi has also been attached in addition to motor claim form of OIC duly filled / signed by the complainant alongwith a copy of insurance policy which shows that the vehicle was insured from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012 with Oriental Insurance Company and it was a private car package policy vide policy no. 271900/31/2012/7930 which was issued to complainant. Further, a copy of the Courier receipt alongwith postal receipt and copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle has also been attached.
3. Notice was issued to OP on 11.02.2013 to appear on 22.01.2014 which was served on OP.
4. An application was submitted on behalf of complainant for impleading LRs of the complainant (his wife, three daughters and one younger son) in view of demise of the complainant Shri Kanchan Singh on 20.01.2014 in the array of parties. The relevant proof in respect of all the members were attached in support of their date of birth education qualifications and a copy of death certificate had also been attached alongwith amended memo of parties. Another notice to OP was issued on 05.03.2014 for appearance in this Forum on 26.03.2014 which was duly received by the OP.
5. Written statement was filed by OP in which the OP took the preliminary objection that the complainant had himself written “Gaadi ka kaam tasalli se karein, jo bhi kharcha aayega main pay karunga” and accordingly the OP had repaired the car of the complainant but the complainant was not making the payment. It was submitted further that the car of the complainant was badly damaged due to an accident and every work had been done fairly by the OP and each and every paisa had been clarified in the bill. Further, the complainant was not coming forward to deposit the bill for the repairs and collecting the car in question. Further OP urged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It was further denied that the OP had orally informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 70,000 – Rs. 80,000/- shall be charged for repairs and there was no document on record to this effect. It was further denied that the OP had raised exorbitant bill and the repair work was done with the consent of the complainant but now he was not making the payment. It was further stated by the OP that he was facing the parking problem and as such the complainant should be burdened with additional charges for parking. The OP annexed the copy of estimate and hand written note by the complainant to the effect of undertaking to bear all expenses towards repair of the vehicle in question.
6. Rejoinder was filed by complainant wherein the complainant reiterated his grievance and further stated that even if the complainant had given his written consent for repairs, it doesn’t mean that the complainant, (now deceased) had given his consent to get repairs of the car with such a heavy bill which is four times of the estimate given by the OP.
7. Affidavit of evidence was filed by the complainant and OP reiterating their respective grievance / defence. In addition to above the OP has submitted a copy of handwritten statement of complainant dated 05.01.2013 on the letter pad of OP wherein it is mentioned that “Gaadi ka kaam Tasalli se karein, jo bhee kharcha aayega, main pay karunga”.
8. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and OP. copy of jobcard dated 18.10.2012, retail cash memo amounting to Rs.  2,05, 455 and another job card dated 10.01.2013 for Rs. 43,768/- has been placed on record by the OP towards repair expenses incurred on the vehicle of the complainant.  
9. We have heard the oral arguments by both the parties and have also gone through the evidence submitted by them in support of their case/ defence.

It is not in dispute that the complainant has reported that his vehicle had met an accident with a tanker on 12.10.2012 at 11:40PM in which his Maruti EECO vehicle was badly damaged though no photographs have been placed on record to that effect to enable the Forum to visualize the extent of damage caused to the vehicle. The complainant did not arraign the OIC as necessary party to the complainant despite the vehicle being insured /covered with OIC at the time of accident. Further no police report was made by the complainant about the accident as according to complainant no third party injury was caused to anyone and as such no police complaint was made Further, the complainant had taken the vehicle using towing services to OP service centre/workshop on 13.10.2012 and on seeing the conditions of the vehicle, the OP had orally /verbally given estimate of repairs of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- but there is no written evidence to this effect. Further it has been stated by the complainant that there was a bill from OP amounting to Rs. 3,27,000/- on 13.10.2012 for the repairs of the vehicle and it included expenditure on each and every item including labour charges which were calculated on the next day of the accident i.e. 13.10.2012. However, the bills filed by the OP are to be tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- (approx). As regards the statement of the OP binding the complainant to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- (approx) that the complainant had written “Gadi ka Kaam Tassalli Se Kare Jo Bhi Kharcha Ayega Main Pay Karunga”, it is worth consideration that the above statement was not signed by the complainant and moreover the statement does not give a free hand to the OP to increase/ inflate the bill as per its whims and fancies to make the repairs equivalent to the cost of purchasing a new small segment vehicle. We also find that there was no estimate / bill of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- on the next day of the accident i.e. 13.10.2012 and instead the estimate / bill submitted by the parties before this Forum amounted to Rs. 3,27,000/-. The undated letter from the OP to the complainant states that the repair was carried out from 13.10.2012 onwards and the vehicle of the complainant was ready for delivery on 19.01.2013 and the complainant had not taken the delivery of the above vehicle. We also notice the fact that the complainant expired after filing the complaint and had left behind his wife, three daughters and one son out of whom one daughter and one son are minors and most of them are of young age and without any source of income after the death of the complainant. We have also seen the computerized bills/jobcard retail cash memo amounting to Rs. 2,49,223/- filed by the OP towards the repairs of the above vehicle in the name of the complainant during the course of oral arguments addressed by the OP. From the documents on record we are of the view that the complainant has submitted the vehicle in question for repairs with OP under the impression of a moderate expenditure based on an estimate of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- though there is no written evidence to this effect. Keeping in view the above position, we opinel that ends of justice would meet if the amount of Rs. 2,49,223/- as per the computerised bill of OP is reduced on the basis of application of law of mean average between the estimate given as per the complainant and the bills submitted by the OP to also meet the ends of justice based on equity. We therefore direct the LRs of complainant shall pay a total amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- (average amount arrived at between Rs. 2,50,000 and Rs. 80,000/-) to the OP and the OP shall deliver the repaired vehicle car of the complainant on receipt of payment by the LRs of the complainant to the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.No order is being passed as to the compensation, litigation expenses payable by OP to complainant or parking charges claimed by the OP from the complainant.

10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11. Announced on: - 01.06.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member