West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/631/2014

Mrs. Swapna Ghosh, Wife of Mr. Tapas Ghosh. - Complainant(s)

Versus

O S L Exclusive Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _631_ OF ___2014__

 

DATE OF FILING :31.12.2014                    DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 29/11/2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Sharmi Basu &  Subrata Sarker

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Mrs. Swapna Ghosh,w/o Mr. Tapas Ghosh of 842/E, Upen Banerjee Road, Kolkata – 60

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1.   OSL Exclusive Private Limited at Gopalpur, Sarkarpool, Budge Budge Trunk Road, Maheshtala, Kolkata – 143.

                                              2.     Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited 4^th floor, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 099.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President          

The short of the complainant is that he had placed her Volkswagen car Model POLO 1.2 MPI bearing registration no.WB 06H 4410  for necessary repairs and placement ,where required, to the workshop of the O.P-2 company on 8.4.2014 . The required repairs and/or replacements are as follows:

1. Front Bumper Repair
2. Fr LH Fender replacement and paint
3. Fr LH door repair and paint
4. RR LH Door replacement and paint
5. LHS Queter Repair and Paint
6. RR Bumper Replacement and Paint

It has claimed that representative of the O.P-1 assured the complainant that car will be delivered within three working days and the expenses sheet in details  should be emailed by the concerned authority to the email ID of the complainant recorded with the O.P-1 company. After expiry of three working days no communication as made from the end f the O.P-1 company. Even after several phone calls by the complainant no satisfactory reply received from the end of the O.P-1 company who disconnected the line rudely only saying that the concerned person is not over there, sometimes, the work is in progress and whenever time comes they would inform the complainant . It has claimed that complainant is a business-woman and due to non-availability of the car complainant has to face lots of trouble  and informed the same to the authority of O.P-1 but no positive response was received. Finally on 18.4.2014 complainant received an email from the O.p-1 that vehicle is ready for delivery and the accrued bill was for a sum of Rs.42,410/- . Accordingly complainant sent her driver to the said workshop of the O.P-1 to bring the said car along with a cheque of Rs.42,410/- but the same was not accepted as it was Good Friday and all the banks were closed. Thereafter on the next date i.e. on 19.4.2014 once again the complainant sent her driver to bring the car from the workshop and went to an outstation due to her professional reason. This time the complainant had sent driver with cash to pay the full charges of repairing expenses that was Rs.42,410/- so that no further unwanted delay occurs. The driver took the delivery of the car and brought it back. On 21.4.2014 complainant had returned from the outstation and first of all she went for the inspection of her car at her garage. But to her utter surprise the complainant founded that the repairing and/or replacement work done by the O.P-1 company was not up the mark and as per the order placed by the complainant . Accordingly, complainant on the same date went to the O.p-1 along with her car and meet the lady, who introduced herself as the Chief Executive of the workshop, and had expressed her dissatisfaction over the work done by the workshop of the O.P-1 and reportedly complained the problems with the car and for which purpose the same was sent to the workshop of the O.P-1 company. But the O.P-1 along with their men behaved very rudely with abusive filthy language to the complainant who protested such behavior of the workers in the workshop and they became more aggressive and abuse with slag language and loudly stated that they have done all the works and would not touch the car. Complainant informed her husband over phone when workers of the workshop snatched the mobile phone of the complainant and also shows her the exit way and stated whatever complainant want ,can do outside the workshop and oust her from the workshop. Thereafter, complainant already filed a complaint to the Officer-In-Charge of Maheshtala P.S. on the same date i.e. on 21.4.2014. Thereafter, it has been stated that on the next the husband of the complainant visited the workshop and talked with the person at the workshop but the same behavior was also repeated by the workers to her husband also. They also took some snaps of the husband of the complainant and threatened if he would not leave the premises immediately they would make the complaint of harassment before the concerned authority . It has claimed that complainant also informed the said unfortunate episode to the O.P-2 in whose authorized dealer/agent is O.P-1 and seeks their intervention for proper service and justice but no fruitful result comes out. Complainant states that the servicing of the car was made in awful manner and none of the replacement of the parts were made as per the selection of the complainant even after the full payment and a shoddy work had been done from the end of the O.P-1 and the car is still in a bad shape and is not at all in prime and proper condition to use due to the negligence, deficiency in services by the O.P-1  in addition the aggressive and harassing attitude to the complainant except and otherwise to rectify the errors made by the workers of the O.p-1 clearly indicates the unfair trade practice of the O.P-1. Hence, this complaint praying for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- only for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to bad trade practice and inefficiency in services , to comply the order placed by the complainant in tune of replacement of the parts of the car as per selection of the complainant  etc.

            The O.P-1 contested the case by filing written version and denied all the allegations leveled against him. It is the positive case of the O.P-1 that they are the authorized agent of O.P-2 and being a company they are continuously maintaining high standard and best service to their esteemed customers and continues to extend all its expertise in meeting the requirements of each and every customer and repairing the vehicle as and when it was brought to its workshop. It has been stated that the complainant wanted to suppress the facts with a malafide intention to mislead this Ld. Forum because on 8.4.2014 the vehicle was reported to the company for accidental repair on left side with the following parts damages:

1. Front Bumper
2. Lh Fender
3. Lh Front Door
4. Lh Rear Door
5. Lh Quarter Panel
6. Rear Bumper

The car was received by the Service Advisor Mr. Rajkumar Roy and explained the complainant the estimate and time that would be taken for repairing the damaged left part of the vehicle and complainant submitted the car for repairing the left damaged part of the vehicle on the same day. It has further stated that repairs were accordingly carried out on the left side of the accident met car and final invoice was raised and the invoice was electronically mailed on April 18,2014 to the complainant with payment terms for Rs.42,410/- . It is true that despite being informed about the payment practice in the mail along with the invoice copy, the driver of the complainant visited  the complainant to take delivery of the car accompanied by a cheque. As the cheque is not accepted it was informed by the Service Advisor to the driver that the car could not taken delivery. Again on 19.4.2014 the driver visited the workshop and this time with Rs.40,000/- in cash for taking delivery of the vehicle instead of the entire invoice amount and accordingly Customer Relation Manager and Service Advisor made repeated calls to the complainant on his mobile but the calls were not responded to by the complainant and thereby company cancelled the earlier invoice giving a go by to a sum  of Rs.2000/- towards labour charges and delivered the car to the driver by issuing a fresh bill of Rs.40,162/-. The positive case of the O.P-1 is that the car was taken delivery by the driver after verifying the repairs carried out on the left side of the vehicle as requested and upon recording satisfaction as to the work carried out and signing of the job card and the satisfaction note. On 22.4.2014 complainant’s husband visited the workshop and without any rhyme and reason started throwing abuses and expletives towards the lady staff of the Customer Relation Team and also the Service Advisor and at the top voice raised a question why the right side of the car was not repaired even after payment of Rs.40,000/- . The husband of the complainant was posing in a abnormal way and seemingly under drunken state much to the surprise and shock of the staff started to click pictures of our lady staff and Service Advisor on his mobile phone, when staff of the company requested him to stop clicking pictures and delete the pictures already taken but he acted in an unruly manner and threatened to put the picture on internet, for which local Police station was called and lodged a police complaint against the behavior of the husband of the complainant  . Thereafter, on 4.6.2014 complainant lodged complaint as to the alleged poor workmanship and misbehavior towards the complainant. It is strongly denied that complainant ever visited the workshop at any point of time and it is her husband who all along visited the workshop and was speaking to the company over plhone in person and misbehaved with the staff of the company. So, suppressing all the material facts the complainant has filed this complaint, which should be dismissed.

The O.P-2 filed a reply stating that the prayers are not against the O.P-2 and no cause of action arises against the O.P-2 .

Points for decision in this case are whether the O.Ps specially O.P-1 made any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

                                                Decision with reasons

Admittedly, complainant’s vehicle being registration no. WB 06H 4410   was placed for repairing, may be after accident or normal repairing. But fact remains repairing was required and that is why complainant placed the vehicle to the O.P-1 and O.P-1 after repairing the same sent an Invoice showing labour details, parts details totaling to Rs.42,410/-.

On careful scrutiny we find that the demand of repair indicates Front Bumper Repair,Fr LH Fender replacement and paint, Fr LH door repair and paint, RR LH Door replacement and paint, LHS Queter Repair and Paint,RR Bumper Replacement and Paint. So the Invoice clearly shows that the repair was made as per admitted replacement of the complainant.

Now the point to be considered that complainant has stated that when she visited the workshop , the workmen and others behaved very rudely towards her and thereafter her husband visited the O.P , same mis-behaviour was made ,for which, complaint was made in the Maheshtala P.S on 22.4.2014. The O.P-1 also denied the same and they also claimed that complainant herself never visited the workshop and always her husband visited the workshop and he behaved very rudely and in drunken condition ,for which they also lodged a complaint before the concerned P.S. That part will be decided by the competent criminal court having its jurisdiction. So, regarding behavior throwing abusive language ,if any, by any of the parties will be decided by the criminal court on the basis of the complaint lodged by the parties before the P.S ,of course, if the P.S draws FIR on the basis of the complaint . Consumer Forum will not decide that matter. We will only consider whether the demanded repair was meted out or not.

From the tax invoice we find that demanded repair already has been meted out and complainant got delivery of the car and satisfaction note really suggests that one signature is appearing which is the customer signature and complainant did not challenge the same ,whether the signature was made by the driver or not. Satisfaction Certificate clearly shows that after test driving of the vehicle and being satisfied with his performance after repairing , the vehicle was accepted and ,of course, payment was made. Moreover, complainant after filing the case did not take any such steps to show that the repairing which was asked for ,was not made properly by any Automobile Expert since the onus is upon the complainant to prove the same, that is why,  when the question was put by the O.p-1 to the complainant, complainant vanished from that date to give reply, because reply has to file swearing affidavit and from the order sheet we find that complainant was given time from 13.6.2016 firstly thereafter 14.7.2016 as last chance and 16./8.2016 as special chance for filing reply and lastly on the date when complainant was categorically absent, show cause was made as to why complainant will not be debarred from filing reply and even then complainant did not care and accordingly complainant was debarred from filing reply ,since she is absent even after last chance ,special chance and show cause and argument was heard on the basis of the materials on record.

Apart from that, we turn our eyes on the questionnaire put by the O.P-1 regarding the suppressing of material facts by the complainant, i.e. accident car was brought to the workshop for repairing on 8.4.2014 ,question no.2. Question no.3 clearly suggests whether complainant has been able to file any evidence in support of her allegation that O.P-1 did not carry out repair as per the order allegedly placed by her . But complainant did not give reply  and in order to avoid all these things complainant vanished since 9.5.2016 up till now. So, this conduct of the complainant clearly suggests that if the complainant gives reply through affidavit, then “Can will come out of the bag” which she suppressed ,that is why when the complainant herself filed this case prevented her from not filing reply which is a vital thing, which also clearly demonstrates that 14^th page of the Evidence Act clearly attracts.

With that observation when complainant has miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the O.p-1 by producing any evidence, which we have mentioned in the body of the order i.e. Automobile Expert Report, we cannot departure from the tax invoice issued by the O.P-1 after repairing ,showing all demanded works have already been done categorically. Thus the totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegations against deficiency in service and unfair trade practice .

Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest against O.P-1 and in exparte against O.P-2 but in the sorry state of affairs we restrain ourselves from imposing any cost  treating the complainant as a vexatious complaint in view of Section 26 of the C.P Act, 1986.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                               Member                                                           President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        President

 

 

  The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                        Ordered

That the application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest against O.P-1 and in exparte against O.P-2 but in the sorry state of affairs we restrain ourselves from imposing any cost  treating the complainant as a vexatious complaint in view of Section 26 of the C.P Act, 1986.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the O.P through speed post and to the complainant free of cost.

 

Member                                               Member                                                           President