J U D G M E N T

1. Complainant’s case: The complainant filed this Complaint U/S 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/S Iconic Automobile, Nirjuli for deficiency of service.

2. The complainant stated that he had purchased vehicle in the month of March, 2014, through a loan availed to him from State Bank of India with a monthly EMI. The aforesaid Scorpio met with an accident on 21.07.2017 and it sustained damaged on the roof top and other part of the bodies. After the accident it was being informed to the Service Centre of Iconic Automobile, Lekhi village wherein, the surveyor from the said Service Centre inspected the accident site and brought the vehicle at service centre for repairing on 25.07.2017. The opposite party issued a slip of manual repair order form on the same day and promised to deliver the vehicle after repairing on or before 15.09.2017.

3. That the opposite party also furnished a list of accessories required for repairing of the said vehicle along with charges to be incurred for repairing of the said vehicle and the total estimated cost including labour charge & spare parts was Rs 3, 63, 781/- (three Lakhs sixty three thousand seven hundred eighty one) only.  Since the vehicle was under Insurance coverage, so no advance was paid for repairing. After an inordinate delay of repairing when the complainant enquired regarding the progress of the vehicle, the opposite party promised to deliver the same on September, 2017 but to utter shock of the complainant the opposite party further extended the delivery time to 24^th Oct’ 2017. Subsequently after expiry of the delivery date the complainant made an inquiry from the Supervisor regarding delivery of his vehicle, but to his surprises they informed him that some parts of the vehicle were still awaited.

4. That even after completion of said period given by the opposite party the vehicle was not delivered to complainant neither they furnished any information regarding progress of work because of which the complainant faced several plights.That the opposite party has deliberately delayed the works of the said vehicle without assigning any cogent reason. And due to the deficiency and inadequate services provided by the Opposite Party, the Complainant and his family have suffered acute mental agony, harassment and loss.

5. That on account of the above stated gross negligence and deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2, 50, 000 ( Two Lakhs fifty thousand) only for mental agony, cost of hiring taxi for period of 6 (six) months Rs.1, 80,000 (One Lakh eighty thousand), in addition Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony suffered on account of the deficient and negligent service provided by the Opposite party and  further sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty thousand) only as legal fees and costs for filling the instant Complaint.

6. That the cause of action for filling the instant Complaint first arose on 26.09.2017, when the opposite party extended a date of delivery and stopped furnishing any information for the same and is continuing till the claims of the Complainant are not settled. Therefore, the learned counsel for the complainant prayed to pass award in favour of the complainant for the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party in delivery of the Scorpio on time.

7. The opposite party filed its written statement and denied that the opp. party had been informed about the accident and the surveyor or any staff of the opp. party inspected the accident site. Further denied that the accident vehicle was brought at the Service Centre for repairing on 23.02.2017. As a matter of fact and record, the accident vehicle was brought at the Service Centre on 23.07.2017 by the complainant.
8. The OP also denied that the opp. party issued a manual repair order form on 23.02.2017, but it was on 23.07.2017. The OP denied that no any advance payment was required to be paid for the vehicle with insurance coverage. The opp. party humbly states that as per the policy of the service centre, the customer is required to pay 50% of advance payment for the parts order costing rupees two thousand and above. The   above policy has been duly notified to all the customers in the sign board displayed at the service centre.  In view of above on many occasions the complainant was requested to deposit the advance payment of fifty percent of the total cost of spare parts, however the complainant failed to make any advance payment.

9. That there was no any alleged latches or negligence on the part of the opp. party in delivering the vehicle to the complainant. But the alleged delay occurred because of the non – payment of the advance payment of the 50% and as such the complainant himself was responsible for the alleged delay. The opp. party further stated that without the advance payment it was not possible to place order for the spare part from outside the State because they don’t accept the demand for spare parts unless the advance payments or paid are made.

10. The opp. party stated that the accident vehicle was lying for a long period for repairing which could not be repaired due to non availability of spare parts for the negligence on the parts of complainant.However, the opp. party undertook the repairing work by managing the spare parts which were available in its spare parts shop on good faith to help out the complainant. Some of the spare parts were not available in the store and was required to be ordered from outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The complainant was duly informed about the requirement of additional spare parts and on many occasions he was requested to make the advance payment at the earliest. Such request was conveniently overlooked by the complainant.  That seeing no positive response from the complainant the opp. party finally placed additional parts order on 17.10.2017 and also on 01.11.2017 which were finally received on 28.11.2017.  Therefore, the entire repairing work of the vehicle could be completed and finally delivered to the complainant on 27.01.2018. The time taken for complete repairing of vehicle was reasonable which could not be done earlier because of the non – availability of the required spare parts and also for the belated receipt of the spare parts. Further it is stated that at the time of delivery of the vehicle the complainant did not register any protest or objection and on the contrary he expressed his satisfaction with the work of opp. party vide customer satisfaction note dated 27.01.2018.

11. That there was no alleged deficiency in the service provided by the opposite party and on the contrary the opposite party helped the complainant by undertaking the repairing work without any advance payment. The opposite party further submits that it is the complainant who was solely responsible for the alleged delay, if any.

12. That the opposite party humbly submits that there is no cause of action against the opposite party and as such the complaint is legally untenable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. It is further submitted that the present complaint has been maliciously filed for unlawful gain and to harass to the opp. party.That the present complaint is without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the present complaint case with compensatory cost. 

13. Points for determination:After going through the plaints this Forum felt the following points to be determined for proper adjudication of the case. They are:

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the opposite party caused deficiency of service as provided U/S 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

14. Argument and submission by the  learned counsels:

Boththe parties made their final hearing on 25^th day of Jan, 2019. The learned counsel appearing for the Complainant has submitted that there are sufficient evidences in support of his case against the opposite parties. The complainant reiterated the stand taken in the plaint and claimed compensation for deficiency in service U/S 12 of CPA.

15. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the opposite party Sri R. Sonar stated that the case is not maintainable as there is no contract nor the service of the OP was hired. That as per the rule of the garage, for calling for any part from outside, the customer has to pay 50% of the parts in advance and the same is clearly displayed in the garage. That despite of the rule, the OP never paid the 50% advance payment of the vehicle having suffered major defect after the accident, however in credit the vehicle which had major defects was repaired by buying the parts from outside and the vehicle was delivered in Jan’ 2018.But despite of that the customer proceeded with the case in Feb’ 2018 and concealed the fact that the vehicle has been already repaired and he has taken the custody of the vehicle without paying anything. That as per section 2 (C) of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant do not comes under the definition of complainant.The learned counsel humbly prayed that the complaint be dismissed by imposing cost on the complainant for filing vexatious and frivolous case as provided U/S 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

16. Findings and reasons for decisions:This Forum hasgiven sincere consideration on the entire evidences on record both oral and documentary and other materials as well.  Now, let us see, how far the complainant has been able to prove his case against the opposite party on the basis of material available on record.

17. Now the section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, gives the definition of the word Deficiency, which says, “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.”

18. On the basis of the above definition, the word deficiency has following ingredients:

1. Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force;
2. The person should have failed of the undertaken to be performed in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

19. After having carefully gone through the available materials on record and hearing both the learned counsels, it is observed that the complainant gave the damaged vehicle for repairing on the presumption that his vehicle was still covered under insurance. That the complainant himself has admitted inpara 8 of his plaint that the opposite party informed him that some parts of the vehicle were still awaited. There is also no denial on the part of the complainant that he did not pay anything to the opposite party for buying the needed parts from outside, which also proves that the complainant did not follow the mandatory rule of payment of 50% advance payment for buying parts from outside.

20. It is also observed that after filing of the case and before the case was admitted by this Forum, the damaged vehicle was already repaired and handed over to the complainant without even having paid anything for the newly bought parts in Jan’2018. The complainant is found to have concealed the facts from this Forum and did not approach this Forum with clean hand. Further there is also no any deficiency found on the part of the opposite party and the delay was caused genuinely for obtaining the necessary parts from outside and for non-payment of 50% advance payment by the complainant.

21. Decision:Hence for the above mentioned facts, it is proved thatboth the points for determination are answered in negative and found that the present suit is not maintainable and as the opposite party is not found to have caused any deficiency of service as provided U/S 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

This Forum after hearing the learned counsels of the complainant and the Opposite party, perusing the documents and annexures submitted by the parties, is of the opinion that the complainant could not prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, this complaint stands dismissedand for filing vexatious and frivolous case, the complainant is hereby directed to pay cost of Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) to the opposite party within 30 (thirty) days from today,  as provided U/S 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

   With this order, the case is disposed of on contest.

            Given under our hand and seal of this Forum on 29^thday of March’ 2019.