DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has arisen out of order dated 13.02.2015 in CC No. 30/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling ( for short , District Forum). By the impugned order, the case has been allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same , the OP No.1 thereof has preferred this appeal.
The case of the Complainant is that his car bearing No. WB-76-8017 (Innova) met with an accident on 30.10.2012 . Accordingly, he informed the P.S. and the Insurance Company. He took the car to the OP No.1 by driving it, who gave an estimate of Rs. 3,08,000/- and told him to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- . But, the OP No.1 did not complete the work and demanded full payment , which he made . After completing the work, the estimate went higher and the OP No.1 did not release the car. Lastly, in March, 2013, the OP No.1 released the car with expenses of Rs. 4,00,000/- approx. But, the OP No.2 only paid Rs. 1,80,000/- , and he was not satisfied with it , as the expense was high. But, after recheck, the OP No.2 reduced Rs. 30,000/-. So, he ultimately got Rs. 1,50,000/-, which he accepted for his financial problem. Accordingly, the case.
On the other hand , the case of the OP NO.1 is that at the early part of November 2012 , the Complainant brought his Innova car at the workshop for repairing its body which was badly damaged due to the accident. Complainant paid Rs.40,000/- on 08.11.2012 and Rs. 60,000/- on 10.11.2012 , and the OP No.1 started the body repairing work and the car was ready within the month of December, 2012. Thereafter, the OP No.1 asked the Complainant to take back his car after making the balance payment in full, which he avoided to do . Ultimately, on 02.02.2013, the Complainant came and took back his car by paying the balance amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the OP No.1 in cash. But, on the same day, at the time of delivery, some noise was coming from the car due to some further problem in the engine, which was repaired, and the OP No.1 handed over the car to the Complainant. There has been no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the OP No.1. Accordingly, the present complaint be dismissed.
It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers any kind of illegality or irregularity so as to make any interference in the impugned order .
Decision with Reasons:
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the manufacturer has not been made a party in the case by the Complainant. The car is not for the purpose of livelihood of the Complainant, who has a fleet of cars . Some portions of the car were not affected by the accident, and the Complainant himself brought the car to the OP No.1 for repairing by self driving . There is no tie-up of the service centre with the insurance company , i.e, the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 . The liability is on the shoulder of the Insurance Company , who paid the claim of the Complainant basing upon the assessment made by the Surveyor, and ultimately paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- .
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that there has been no manufacturing defect of the car, for which the manufacturer has not been made a party in the case. There has been no prayer for refund or replacement by the Complainant . The car was in running condition after the accident. Though the Complainant paid the whole amount of the estimate to the OP No.1, but still the car was not handed over to the Complainant by the OP No.1 in order to intentionally harass him . It is a proved case of negligence on the part of the OP No.1 . There is no perversion in the impugned order .
There has been much delay in handing over the car to the Complainant by the OP No.1 after its repairing . The car was then within the warranty period of the manufacturer, and the OP No.1 is their authorized service centre. Accordingly, there is full merit in the case of the Complainant. The impugned order has been rightly passed. There is nothing to disturb the same. Thus, the impugned order is sustained and upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
