Haryana

StateCommission

A/1040/2014

R.N.Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Orion Automobiles (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1040 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 12.11.2015

Date of Decision: 28.01.2016

 

R.N.Sharma S/o Sh.Hari Kishan Sharma, r/o H.No.430/20 Shanti Nagar, Gurgaon.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Orion Automobiles (P) Ltd., 17 Mehrauli road, Opp. Kalyani Hospital, Adjecent Government College, Gurgaon (HR) through Branch Manager.

                                                          .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by the complainant that he got his car repaired from the workshop of O.P.No.27.07.2010 vide invoice No.B-201011686 against payment of Rs.2491/- for replacement of cylinder assembly wheel, brake fluid, Gaslet oil plug and pug oil drain etc.  On 07.08.2010 when he was going to Delhi, the car  broke down and with the help of crane it was shifted to  Nirmal Car Diagnostic Centre and was  got repaired against payment of Rs.2100/-. Wheel cylinder was broken and was replaced.  It was told that opposite party (O.P.) replaced the wheel cylinder with old one on 27.07.2010. Amount paid to Nirmal Car Diagnostic Centre be got reimbursed and he be also compensated for mental harassment etc.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the car was repaired to his satisfaction.  Normally the car should be got serviced after every six months or 10,000 kilometers whichever is earlier, but, the complainant was not following the schedule. The complainant did not get his car repaired from authorized agent of Hyundai Motors India Limited, so it cannot be presumed as per opinion of Nirmal Car Doagnostic Centre that it can’t be presumed that answering O.P. fitted old parts in the car.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum, Gurgaon (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint  vide impugned order dated 03.06.2014.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments of only appellant-complainant’s counsel were heard because none has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service and appeal was adjourned twice for his presence.

6.      It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the car was got serviced from O.P. on 27.07.2010 and at that time cylinder assembly wheel was replaced, but, the same was damaged by 07.08.2010 due to which car broke down and was got repaired from Nirmal Car Diagnostic Centre as mentioned above, so he be compensated as prayed for.

7.      This argument seems to be plausible. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that the car was got serviced by complainant from O.P. on 27.07.2010 and cylinder assembly wheel was replaced. On 07.08.2010 when the vehicle broke down it was found that the cylinder wheel was broken.  Just after 10 days that part stopped working.  It shows that the proper part was not fitted by the O.P. If the car was got repaired from other than authorized agent it cannot be presumed that averments of the complainant are not true.  It is not necessary that a person will always take a vehicle to the authorized agent.  In case of emergency one has to take the vehicle to the nearby workshop.  Learned district forum disbelieved the version of the complainant only on this ground. Had the cylinder assembly wheel not damaged, Nirmal Car diagnostic Centre would not have replaced the same. If the complainant got fitted wheel cylinder of lesser value it does not mean that the same was not damaged because other articles, required in the change, were also put such as brakeshoe, oil etc.  As per bill dated 07.08.2010  complainant paid Rs.2100/- to Nirmal Car Diagnostic Centre and is entitled for the same. Due to faulty service the car broke down on the way and he suffered mental harassment.  Before covering 4000 Kms the car was again serviced from the O.P.  It shows that the complainant was getting his vehicle serviced properly.  It is a clear case of deficiency in service, so impugned order dated 03.06.2014 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  The appeal is allowed and O.P.-respondent is directed to pay Rs.2100/-  to the complainant-appellant for repairs of car, Rs.550/- for mental harassment and Rs.1100/- for litigation expenses.

 

January 28th, 2016            Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                                Addl.Bench             

S.K.