Delhi

East Delhi

CC/309/2014

NIKUNJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER HONDA - Opp.Party(s)

03 Oct 2016

ORDER

              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                       Consumer complaint no.  309 / 2014                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution          29/03/2014

                                                                                                        Order reserved on           03/10/2016

                                                                                                        Date of Order                   04/10/2016               

In matter of

 

Mr Nikunj Sharma, adult

S/o Sh Satish Sharma    

R/o- C-38, Single Storey

Brij Vihar, PO-Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad UP ………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                            

                                                                              Vs

1-M/s Rajender Honda   

A-17, DSIDC, Industrial Complex,

Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi 110032………………………….Respondents   

 

Complainant……………………………………………………….In Person

Opponent’s Advocates………………………………………..Prashant Jain & Arun Sharma

 

Quorum      Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                     Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                     Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                       

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief…..

This complaint has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in services by OP in getting repairing of his 11 years old two wheeler under paid service, though many old model scooter parts were not available in the service station/OP at that time. Due to this, huge mental harassment and financial damages had occurred.

 

Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant took his two wheeler for service to OP on January 30 in the morning. He was told by OP that his scooter would be on 31^st Jan ie on the next day. Op had told that the said scooter would be delivered to complainant by 6 pm. Complainant stated that his half day leave was wasted which caused loss of half day salary of RS 2350/-.

Complainant stated that as per his job card, OP had to change kick of scooter, Rear view mirror, Indicator changing, Accelerator cover change and scooter service. When he was handed over his scooter to him, no parts were changed.

He stated that he remained stranded by the side of mechanic for more than 2 hours inside workshop and hefty bill of sum of Rs 2340/- was given to him for giving service to his scoter.

He also submitted that after taking the delivery of scooter after service, scooter was not getting started and no one listens to his complaint at OP workshop. Also on the next day, his scooter got stopped suddenly on the way to his office and had to park near a factory, and reached office late, so his half day salary was deducted.

He had lodged number of complaints as per annexure II,III,IV and V, but his grievances were not resolved by OP. He also submitted that he had to incur a extra financial loss of about Rs 200/ from his house in Brij Vihar to Jhilmil Metro Station for over 45 days. This had caused mental harassment and economic burden on him. So he filed this complaint claiming refund of his service charges paid to OP with a sum of Rs 60,000/- for harassment and financial loss. He had also claimed a sum of RS 10,000/- as litigation charges. 

 

 

Notice was served. OP appeared and filed its written statement denying all the allegations and facts narrated in the complaint. OP admitted that the said scooter was brought for its service which was 11 year old and was in bad status. OP submitted that after inspection of the scooter, engine had to be serviced properly and would require change many parts. As most of the parts were not available with the OP, had to be ordered and this would require few days, but complainant was not ready for replacing with new parts as cost of the parts were costly, but complainant refused to pay any amount and insisted to repair the old parts and change the defective or damaged parts. Hence, OP did service and replaced some parts which were available in their workshop. OP charged for the parts, oil filter, gas kits, break shoes, other wires. Complainant was given a bill for services as annexed as vehicle history with service charges which were on record.

 

OP did their services as per specification of providing service and handed over his scooter in good running condition. Therefore, alleging deficiency in their services was denied totally. Parties submitted their evidences on affidavit which were on record. 

 

Arguments heard and order was reserved.

 

After perusal of all the evidences and facts of the complainant, it was seen that complainant state that his scooter which was 11 years old, was taken for service at OP workshop.

 

 

It was admitted that service was done but the parts were not changed as complainant was not ready to pay for the parts, more so, the required parts were not available in the market as the said scooter was of very old model. There was no record of previous services taken by complainant submitted on record. Also, complainant had stated that due to deficient services of OP, he lost twice his half day salary, but he did not annexed any document which could be taken on record that complainant had been harassed by OP and his half day   salary was deducted.

 

After seeing the type of arguments done by the complainant and his salary slip of his organization where he was getting his monthly salary approx to 61,000/- pm, it cannot be assumed that he was without a vehicle for 45 days and was spending Rs 200/- per day from Brij Vihar, across the Vivek Vihar, Delhi to Jhilmil Metro Station which is hardly few kilometers of distance. He had also not submitted salary deduction slip of twice for half day as stated in his complaint. There were no taxi or auto fare paid slip on record which could be assumed for extra financial loss occurred due to OP.

 

It is quite clear that in ordinary service of a vehicle, if any parts were to be changed, the cost with labor charges are taken. Here, complainant was insisting for replacement of many parts free of cost where as his scooter was neither in warranty nor in AMC so services could be availed free of charges and damaged parts could be replaced or repaired.  Hence, complainant has failed to establish the deficiency of OP by any single concrete evidence.

 

 

So, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merits, and pass the following order—

1. The complaint is dismissed with the cost of Rs 10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Forum, within 30 days from the receiving of this order.
2. Failing to comply, the cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order received till realization.  

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per the rules.

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                         (Dr) P N Tiwari            Member                                                                                                          Member

                                                 Sh. Sukhdev Singh

                                                         President