DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 12 of 2021.
Date of hearing : 11.06.2024.
Date of order : 23.07.2024.
Dated the 23rd day of July 2024.
Rabindra Jena, At:-Alatri, Po:- Panikoili,
Dist:-Jajpur, Odisha, Pin-755043. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- Sankar Bajaj (10675), Charampa,
At/Po:-Charampa, Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha.
- Bajaj Auto Ltd. (Ashish Rath)
At:- Old Mumbai Pune-Road Akrudi, Pune.
- Bajaj Auto Service Centre,
Prop : Shankar Bajaj, Charampa,
Dist:-Bhadrak, Pin-756101.....Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : In Person.
Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 : M.A. Khan, Advocate & Associates,
Counsel for the O.P.No.1 & 3 : M.A. Khan, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant had given his Bajaj Pulsar 150, Regd. No.OR05-X-3256 in a service center named Shankar Bajaj (10675), NH-5, Charampa, Bhadrak, Odisha on dtd.16.12.2020 for repair his bike. Initially, the service center asked the complainant to deposit Rs.3,000/- in advance. So, the complainant did so. After repair on dtd.19.12.2020, the service center asked to deposit another Rs.10,000/- which the complainant also paid. The complainant asked the service center for a bill & got only a bill of spare parts of Rs.6,610/- the amount in that bill was less than the actual payment which the complainant had made. The complainant brought the issue to the owner of the service center (Shankar Bajaj). The service center gave another bill to the complainant by whatsApp message which was also less than the actual payment which the complainant had made. Thereafter the complainant took the matter to the Bajaj Company, Bajaj Auto Ltd. Then a third bill came by post & whatsApp message of Ashish Rath of Rs.8,889/-. The bills are different. There were no match. When the complainant asked the reason, the Bajaj Auto Ltd. person named Ashish Rath with his phone No.9437494344 told that they had done bike repair works outside. He told the complainant that company had guideline No repairs, maintenance must be done outside a service center. After long hustle-bustle the service center returned Rs.945/- to the complainant & said that, wrongfully they had taken the excess amount. Asish Rath of Bajaj Auto Ltd. told that service center (Shankar Bajaj) done wrong practice, they penalized the dealer because they received payment in his personal account instead of the dealer. As such the complainant has compelled to file the case & prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.5,00,000/- for wasted time & money, got mental & physical harassment etc. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. (1) Copy of 1st bill dtd.19.12.2020 (2) Copy of 2nd bill dtd.22.12.2020 (3) copy of 3rd bill by Ashish Rath Bajaj Auto Ltd. on dtd.11.01.2021 (4) Copy of money received by Shankar Bajaj, & (5) Copy of money returned by Shankar Bajaj on dtd.13.01.2021.
The O.P.No.1 & 3 submit that, the complainant entered his vehicle on 16.12.2020 in the service center. He reported the problem of the vehicle such as, clutch plate replacement, engine work, S. Checkup, Fuel Tank Wash, Engine Oil Replacement & general checkup. The technician/mechanic of the service center, after thorough check up of the vehicle, reported him about the requirement of spare parts. As the complainant was unwilling to replace all the spare parts reported by the mechanic of the service center, he requested the service center mechanic to do repairing work of some of the spare parts instead of replacement of the same. As the mending/repairing work such as welding of silencer noise, magnet repairing, lathe work of crank, hoode, clutch etc. were not available in the service center, the mechanic told him that the said repairing work is to be done outside the service center. On the request of customer, some repairing & mending work has been conducted in Lambu Lathe on 19.12.2020. Before the work, the complainant has been requested to pay the approximate amount to the mechanic & accordingly he has been asked to deposit Rs.3,000/- for outside repairing work & he had deposited the said amount before the mechanic. A job card was prepared manually mentioning the approximate rate of spare, which came around Rs.10,174/-. The complainant deposited the same through net banking. After completion of repairing work, the complainant was informed & at the time of delivery of vehicle, the mechanic of O.P.2 & 3 initially provided him the Bill of Lambu Lathe, By-pass, Bhadrak for the work done outside of the service center of Rs.3,450/-. The staff of O.P.2 & 3 had also provided him the CDMS Bill of only spares of Rs.6,610/- on dtd.19.12.2020 excluding the labour charges. But as the complainant insisted to provide him the bill of total spare & labour charges, the billing staff of the service center expressed his inability to provide the same as once the CDMS bill is prepared for a customer, the same cannot be generated twice. The matter was reported to the owner of service center, who in order to satisfy the complainant, provided him the tally bill of spares mentioning the actual price as mentioned in CDMS bill of spares as well as labour charges total of Rs.9,110/- which is generated by the computer of the service center. The complainant is suspicious in character, he registered his complaint before the company regarding his grievance. Ashish Rath, on behalf of company took the matter in his hand & after enquiry from the service center, duly prepared a CDMS tax invoice, after cancelling the original one on dtd.11.02.2021 & communicated the same to the complainant for his satisfaction. The said bill was of Rs.8,889/- for both the price of spare parts & labour charges. After detecting the same, the company directed the service center to look into the matter & return the exceed amount of Rs.945/- to the complainant on 13.01.2021. There is no malafide intention of the service center. It was occurred due to fluctuation of price in some spare parts owing to efflux of time in between the first CDMS bill & last CDMS bill.
The O.P.No.2 & 3 submit that, the complainant registered his complaint before the company regarding slight discrepancy in the bill amount allegedly provided by the O.P.1 & 3, on behalf of the company, Ashish Rath took the matter in his hands & after enquiry from the service center directed them to prepared CDMS tax invoice after cancelling the original one dtd.11.01.2021 & communicated the fresh CDMS tax invoice of Rs.8,889/- for both the price of spare parts & labour charges to the complainant. Due to fluctuation of price in the midst of efflux of time there was a slight difference of rate of one or two spare parts in the CDMS bill of first instance dtd.19.12.2020 & last instance dtd.11.01.2021 & accordingly the total price has been slightly different. After detecting the same, the company directed the service center to look into the matter & told the O.P.1 & 3 to return the excess amount, if found, to the complainant. After calculation, the O.P.1 & 3 have returned the excess amount of Rs.945/- to the complainant on 13.01.2021, which he had deposited earlier as advance for serving & repair of his vehicle. The excess amount deposited by the complainant has already been refunded to the complainant. There is no question of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the O.P.2. The O.P.2 is not involved in any kind of financial transaction with the complainant. So the O.P.2 is not at all a necessary party of this dispute.
Having heard the rival contentions and after careful examination of materials available in the case record, this commission finds that the crux of the allegation of the complainant is that he has been supplied a receipt of repair which shows less amount than which he has paid. The complainant has given his Bajaj Pulsar 150, Regd. No.OR05-X-3256 at OP No.1 on dtd.16.12.2020 for repair. His vehicle has been handed over to the complainant after 3 days i.e. on 19/12/2020 after the desired repaid. There seems no complains with regard to repair of the vehicle. The complainant was aggrieved because he has paid Rs.13,000/- in 2 occasions but bills of lesser amount were provided to him on 19/12/2020 & 22/12/2020. The complainant has rightly taken up the issue to OP No.1 & OP No.2 and they have redressed the problem with promptitude and the complainant has received the refund of Rs.945/- without any objection. So, it cannot be said that these OPs did not address to the problem of the complainant. There may be some irregularities on part of these O.Ps but they were not deficient in providing service to the complainant. So, this commission does not find any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on part of these O.Ps.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
