This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased 02 motor parts from the O.P. He went to the O.P on 28.06.2022 due to some mechanical problems in his car bearing Registration No: W.B 59B/0229. After checking his car the O.P informed him that the Pressure Plate & Clutch Plate of that car have been damaged & it was necessary to replace them by new one & as such the complainant asked the Manager to fit the said part(s) to his car. Subsequently the O.P handed over the cash memo which mentions clutch is 260 DIA SPAC having Part No. 272425200143 price of that part is Rs.5426/- but the complainant submits that the garage did not install the said parts i.e Clutch Disk 260 DIA SPAC instead the garage installed Clutch Disk 240 DIA SPAC valued Rs.2,778/-. Complainant submits that Clutch Disk 260 DIA SPAC is never meant for his car as he needs Clutch Disk 240 DIA SPAC. Another part(s) having Part No:2724254001BB was also purchased by the complainant, but that part was not used and so returned to the dealer. The complainant received full amount of the price of the part(s) which is valued at Rs.3,970/-. The complainant several times requested the O.P to return the value of Part 260 DIA SPAC & take the value of 240 DIA SPAC, but the dealer did not pay any heed to his claim. Hence he filed a complaint case C.C.No:78/2022.
The complainant prays for refund of excess value of part(s), compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- in the nutshell this is the case.
O.P contested the case by filing W.V stating that it only sold two parts CLUTCH DISK 260 DIA SPAC & Clutch Cover 260 DIA SPAC and issued cash memo for Rs.5,426/- & Rs.3,970/- respectively on 28.02.2022, later price of Clutch Cover Rs.3,970/- was returned to the complainant being not suitable/fit in his vehicle. Neither the complainant serviced his vehicle at Sanyal Garage nor purchased Clutch Disk 240 DIA SPAC nor O.P installed/fitted Clutch Disk 240 DIA SPAC in the vehicle of the complainant. On 11.05.2022 the complainant while collected something from the scrap of garage room Manager of Sanyal Garage resisted him as a result there was a quarrel and the complainant fled away from the garage to save his skin. The complainant has no cause of action and no locus standi to lodge the complaint & it is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration:-
- Whether there was any deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the O.P or existing of unfair trade practices on the part of the O.P which gives rise cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
Complainant was deposed as P.W.1 & O.P preferred submission by questionnaire instead of cross-examination.
At the very beginning we should very clear that the complainant never submits any document to shows that he serviced his car at “Sanyal Garage”. Though the complainant submits that he requested the Sanyal Garage to change his required part(s) 240 DIA SPAC, but the complainant failed to submit any bill or any document(s) which could prove that his car was serviced by “Sanyal Garage”.
The Ld. Advocate of the O.P claims that they sold the parts 260 DIA SPAC to the complainant it is true but the complainant never serviced his car to replace that part(s) at “Sanyal Garage”. Sanyal Garage only sold the part(s) & never serviced/replaced it by their mechanic, so there arises a benefit of doubt whether the complainant actually serviced his car at “Sanyal Garage” or he serviced it in another garage.
The O.P denied that Sanyal garage had changed the part(s) of the car of the complainant.
The complainant failed to produce any document(s) which exclusively proves that he had serviced his car in the O.P’s garage. The complainant also failed to produce any cash memo for the parts CLUTCH DISC 240 DIA SPAC in support of his claim.
Final analysis the complainant failed to prove deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P, so the complainant is not entitled to get claim as prayed for.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-78/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
