Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/128/2023

Palak Kakkar W/o Ankit Kakkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Mototrs - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant Inperson

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

                                                                   Complaint No.:       128 of 2023.

                                                                   Date of institution:    17.04.2023.

                                                                   Date of decision:       02.08.2023.

 

Palak Kakkar wife of Sh. Ankit Kakkar, R/o House No.57, Shakti Nagar, Model Town, near, D.A.V. Girl School, Yamuna Nagar-135003, through Sh. Ankit Kakkar husband of Smt. Palak Kakkar.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                                            Versus.

 

Raj Motors, Tejli Gate, Manohar Nagar, near Matka Chowk, Old Court Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Prop., Partner, Owner/ Authorized Signatory.

…Respondent.

 

CORAM:    GULAB SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   JASVINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                                    

Present:       Sh. Ankit Kakkar, authorized person, for the complainant.

                    Opponent ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2023.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                   This is complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.           Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C.1 to Ex.C13, brief facts of the case are, the complainant is registered owner of car make Honda Jazz-V bearing registration No.HR-02-AP-9754 (for short car), fact is reflected from photocopy Ex.C2 of the registration card. The car was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. On 18.02.2022, the car got damaged in a road side accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandi Mandir, District Panchkula. The complainant lodged her claim with the National Insurance Company Limited under the policy Ex.C10 and ultimately, insurance company made payment of Rs.1,69,143/- to the complainant, fact is reflected from copy of statement of account Ex.C3 pertaining to bank account of the complainant. The complainant brought her car for repair to the opponent and the opponent agreed to repair the car, raised demand of Rs.1,82,000/-, but the matter was finally settled in the sum of Rs.1,62,000/-, fact is reflected from document Ex.C5 and complainant paid Rs.50,000/- in advance out of settlement amount of Rs.1,62,000/- on 18.02.2022, again fact is reflected from statement of account Ex.C4 pertaining to the bank of the complainant and ultimately out of settled amount of Rs.1,62,000/-, the complainant paid whole of the amount of Rs.1,62,000/- to the opponent on 21.05.2022, fact is reflected from copy of statement of account Ex.C6 pertaining to the bank account of the complainant and which is showing credit of Rs.1,62,000/- in the account of the opponent.

3.                The complainant alleged, on checking of the car, which was repaired by the opponent, it was found, it was still having many defects, in its parts, which required repair or replacement. The opponent also charged cost of accidental paint and labour charges in the sum of Rs.20,000/- which was settled in the form of discount by both parties and total amount came to Rs.1,62,000/- as per acknowledgement Ex.C4 and it was assured pending job work will be done by the opponent in its workshop, but the opponent on receipt of total amount of Rs.1,62,000/-, the complainant delivered his car twice to the opponent for pending repair. When the car taken for repair first time, the opponent repainted one of the door, whose paint started cracking in a couple of months and the opponent mishandled the car returning the car with defective music system alongwith calling mic, with some sound of the engine of the car and the air conditioner of the car was not working properly. In this regard, she many time visited to the workshop of the opponent which was of no avail. The opponent failed to repair the car by no doing the pending job work as promised on 21.05.2022, reflected from document Ex.C4 and on 24.06.2022, a checking report Ex.C7 was prepared from another authorized dealer of Honda Motors i.e. Kishav Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ambala Cantt. According to which music system of the car was not working and needed to be replaced. On 07.12.2022, the job card Ex.C8, the case was again handed over to the opponent for second time for paint work and other repair, but it failed. On 20.02.2023, a complaint Ex.C9 was lodged in Police against the opponent and she many time visited to the opponent, but the opponent failed to redress her grievance which amounted to act of negligence, deficiency in service, as well as unfair trade practices, resulting to mental agony, harassment, financial loss and constrained her to file the complaint.

4.                On receipt of the complaint, notice of complaint was sent to the opponent and the same was delivered upon the opponent on 28.04.2022, fact is reflected from report Ex.M1 made by the process server of the Commission. There is no ground to disbelieve the Process Server of this Commission and the report of Process Server is also bearing the seal of the opponent, apart from signature of the person who received the notice. The opponent failed to appear before the Commission either in person or through any Advocate, neither it filed written statement within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of the complaint and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.2023 passed by this Commission.

5.              Sh. Ankit Kakkar, who has been authorized by the complainant to represent her in the Commission, in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and he apprised the Commission about the evidence adduced on record by the complainant in order to substantiate her version made into the complaint.

6.            The moot question before the Commission, is whether the opponent committed any act of negligence, deficiency in service, making the complainant entitled to the relief, as prayed or to what extent?    

7.           The allegation and ex-parte evidence on record adduced by the complainant goes un-rebutted and non-contesting of the complaint by the opponent despite receipt of its notice from this Commission means, it had nothing to say in its defence. The version of the complainant made in the complaint which is duly substantiated by documentary evidence, is found plausible to some extent and as per its own undertaking dated 21.05.2022 Ex.C4, the opponent on receipt of Rs.1,62,000/- was to complete all the pending job work qua the car, but it failed and job sheet Ex.C8 dated 07.12.2022 also makes clear, the car was brought in the workshop of the opponent for pending repair, but the opponent failed to do the pending repair including door paint as mentioned in the job sheet Ex.C8. The complainant also alleged, music system was not working and needed to be replaced, but the complainant cannot wriggle out from her own documents and the estimate of repair Ex.C13 issued by the opponent, nowhere speaks about the repair and replacement of the music system in the car. So version of the complainant to this extent is not believable. The opponent for the purpose of paint assessed the cost of Rs.45,000/- and again this fact is clear from document i.e. tax invoice dated 26.03.2022 Ex.C13 and non painting of the car as per promise and estimate, amounts to act of negligence, deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices, because it is not fair on the part of the opponent to take the settlement amount from the customer and then not to complete the pending job work of the vehicle and same is the position in the case in hand and act of negligence, deficiency in service and act of unfair trade practices on the part of the opponent, caused mental agony, harassment, wasted the time of the complainant, deprived her from the amenity to enjoy the car due to its partial repair and constrained her to file the complaint by incurring cost of litigation and this Commission is of the firm view, in case, punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), awarded against the opponent, to compensate the complainant in all heads, it will suffice the purpose and ends of justice will meet.

8.                Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is, partly, accepted against the opponent, holding it liable to make payment of punitive damages in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant, to compensate her in all heads, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in default of it, it shall be liable to pay interest (Simple) @8% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment. The complainant will deliver the certified copy of this order to the opponent either by hand or through registered post or through email or any other legal mode at her own responsibility.

9.                File be consigned to the records. 

Dated: 02.08.2023.     

                                                                           (Gulab Singh)

                                                                          District & Sessions Judge (VRS)

                                  (Jasvinder Singh)              President,

                                  (Member).                         DCDRC, YNR.               
 

 

 

Typed by:  Jitender Sharma, Steno-typist.