West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2013/60

SURAJ PRADHAN, - Complainant(s)

Versus

OSL AUTOMOTIVE (P) LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 60/S/2013.                DATED : 26.08.2015.   

             

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE

                                                              & SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SURAJ PRADHAN,  

  Vill & P.O. & P.S.- Rongli Bazer,

  East Sikkim : 737 131.

                                                              

O.P.                                       : OSL AUTOMOTIVE (P) LTD.,   

  Opp. – All India Radio,

  3^rd Mile, Sevoke Road,

  Siliguri.

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Self.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

Smt. Pratiti Bhattacharyya, Ld. Member.

 

The complainant’s case is succinctly summarized as follows :-

The complainant’s case in a nutshell is that the complainant gave the vehicle for repairing to OSL Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. on 03.05.2012.  There was oral condition that OP will repair the vehicle and handover the same to the complainant by 60 days.  But the same was not done.  When complainant came to the OP on 71 days and found incomplete repairing work.  At that time the OP requested the complainant to give advance for repairing work.  Accordingly, the complainant gave Rs.50,000/- to OP as advance money.  The OP repaired the vehicle and submitted a bill of Rs.7,65,869/- to the complainant on 12.02.2013.  The repairing cost was

 

Contd…..P/2

-:2:-

 

 

fixed at Rs.9,27,715/- at the time of giving the vehicle for repairing work to OP. On verification, complainant found that repairing has been done with old parts.  It is also alleges that OP failed to complete his repairing work beyond the contractual period and due to such late completion of repairing work, complainant suffered much and he has calculated that total amount or loss suffered by complainant is Rs.15,55,200/-.  Accordingly, this complaint has been lodged claiming compensation as per prayer laid down in para no.14. 

OP/OSL has contested the case and filed WV denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant and contended that they took Rs.50,000/- as advance money from the complainant.  In general, they used to take 50% of the estimated cost.  The OP also contended that they are ready to replace all the old items with new parts if given a time of 45 days and placed before the Ld. Forum to direct the complainant to deposit the amount.  It is also contended by the OP that OP estimated total cost before dismantling the vehicle at an amount of Rs.9,27,715/-.  But the OP did not make any promise regarding time of delivery within 60 days from date of receiving i.e., 03.05.2012.

The dispute between the two parties between the complainant and the OP is concerned with amount of final bill submitted by OP and due to late repairing work. 

To prove the case complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Inventory checklist – Annexure-I.

2.       Estimate of exp. Annexure-II.

3.       Adv. Money receipt Annexure-III.

4.       Tax Invoice  Annexure – IV.

 

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief on oath.

OP has filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit.

 

Contd…..P/3

-:3:-

 

 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether the OP failed to repair the vehicle within contractual period between complainant and OP for which the complainant filed this case for compensation?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get compensation as per his prayer?

 

Decision with reason

 

There is no dispute between the parties with the repairing work.  There is no dispute between the parties with the accident.  The disputes concerns with delaying of repairing work and lowering the total repairing cost from Rs.9,27,715/-.

The main allegations of the complainant are that the OP has also used old parts. 

The prima-facie duty of the complainant is to prove that there was written agreement regarding time of repairing work, but the complainant did not produce any paper to show that there was written agreement or oral agreement to complete the repairing work by 60 days.  But the OP admits that to less the repairing cost some old parts have been used by the OP.  The OP also intends to replace the old parts by a new. 

The case stands on the principle of “time is an essence of contract”.

In this case, there is no proof that there had been agreement between the parties that OP would complete the repairing work by 60 days.

There is no paper to show that even on the 71 days the complainant was ready to take the delivery of the vehicle.  It is also contended by the OP that after nine months when the vehicle was fully repaired and bill was submitted on 12.02.2013, Thereafter the complainant has come forward before this Forum claiming

 

Contd…..P/4

-:4:-

 

 

compensation.  It is argued that complainant was ill motivated and with intention not to give any repairing cost has filed this claim without any basis.   

It is argued by the complainant is that OP failed to complete repairing work by 60 days.  So, the complainant is entitled to get compensation.  It is argued by ld advocate of the OP that there is no evidence to show that OP took the vehicle to complete repairing work by 60 days and that complainant paid advance money for repairing on the date of giving the vehicle to OP for repairing work.

To after giving attention to the conduct of the both parties’ case and documents and circumstances, we are of opinion that complainant is unable to prove his case and is entitled to get any relief. 

Accordingly, we are of opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such the case is disallowed.

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.60/S/2013 is dismissed on contest. 

Let copies of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.               

 

 

-Member-                    -Member-                            -President-