Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President.<br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief facts is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the owner of Mahindra Max Pick up Van being its Regd No. OR-17-D-4889 and use to maintain his family with the help of that vehicle. Unfortunately the said vehicle met with an accident on Dt.24/12/2005 causing damage of several parts. The accident vehicle was under repair of M/s Akash Jyoti Motors Pvt. Ltd, the Opposite Party. The damage parts including the chassis of the vehicle, which was slightly damaged were replaced. After repair of the vehicle, the old spare parts except the Old chassis were returned by the Opposite Party on Dt.12/05/2007. The price of the new chassis is Rs.38,000/-(Rupees thirty eight thousand)only which is purchased from the Opposite Party. The Complainant requested several time to returned the old chassis but it was avoided with some pretext. The Complainant also sent a notice Dt.28/09/2007 requesting the Opposite Party to return the old chassis, but the Opposite Party did not respond to the notice and remain silent. Non-return of the old chassis by the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only towards the price of the old chassis, Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only compensation towards mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses for the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party in its version denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied all other allegation made by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The vehicle of the Complainant was met with an accident on Dt.24/12/2005 and it was repaired by the Opposite Party is not disputed. The case of the Opposite Party is that, after repairing the vehicle the old/replaced parts including the old chassis were returned to the Complainant for the purpose of depositing the same as salvage to reimburse the cost of parts and repairing.<br /> <br /> Further the case of the Opposite Party is that, the old chassis could be valued only a scarp and would not cost more then a thousand.<br /> <br /> Further the case of the Opposite Party is that since the Opposite Party has returned the old damage parts including the old chassis to the Complainant there is no question of deficiency in service by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> In Order to prove his case the Complainant has relied on the xerox copy of Notice Dt.28/09/2007 issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, Xerox copy of work shop Gate Pass Dt.12/05/2007 and xerox copy of Retail invoice No.1270 Dt.13/03/2006, Xerox copy of postal receipts and AD and Copies of estimate.<br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint petition, Opposite Party's version as well as the copies of documents relied on by the Parties and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The vehicle in question of the Complainant was met with an accident on Dt.24/12/2005 and it was repaired by the Opposite Party by replacing the old damage parts of the vehicle are not disputed by the Parties. The only dispute in this case is that, the Complainant claims that the Opposite Party has returned all the parts except the old chassis but the Opposite Party claims that, the Opposite Party has returned all the parts including the old chassis to the Complainant. The Opposite Party pleads that immediately after repairing the vehicle, the Complainant had taken delivery of the old/replaced parts including the replaced chassis for the purpose of depositing the same as salvage to reimburse the cost of the parts and repairing. No any evidence, either in shape of documents or in any other form is adduced by the Opposite Party to prove its case.<br /> <br /> It is evident from the documents filed by the Complainant that, the Complainant has purchased a new chassis along with other parts from the Opposite Party and the new chassis was replaced in the vehicle, and after repair, the Opposite Party has returned the old parts except the old chassis to the Complainant. Further it is also evident that inspite of written notice, Dt.28/09/2007, requesting the Opposite Party to returned the old chassis, the Opposite Party did not respond to the notice, is amounts to deficiency in service towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Thus, the Complainant has well established a case of deficiency in service on the parts of the Opposite Party and hence liable to pay compensation to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In view of above discussion, the Complaint is allowed and order as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as compensation towards the cost of the old chassis, mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant with in 30(thirty) days from the date of this Order or else the Complainant is entitled to interest @18%(eighteen percent) per annum till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> <br />