FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER

This is a complaint case under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The fact of the case in brief is that the Complainant Dr. Siddhartha Goswami being the owner of a four wheeler under  the name and style ACCORD 2.4 Maker of Honda Siel Cars Limited, Engine No. K 24A4000808 Chassis No. MAKCM 562C7N300184 having registration No. WB 02 X 5113 met  with an accident in the first week of September, 2016 and   went to one of the authorized service  centre of Honda  on  06.09.2016 to get the car repaired. The complainant also informed HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited for getting the insurance coverage. The Insurance Company as per the submission of the complainant paid the amount as claimed by the OP. But the OP did not  handover  the car  in spite of several correspondences  via email and phone calls  for more or less five/six months instead of that they started saying that the parts are not available and will be coming from Japan. Thereafter, the OP started demanding extra money without any reason and rhymes. The complainant being a gentleman having name and fame in the society agreed to, pay the alleged outstanding bill to get his car duly repaired. Having no other option left the complainant went to the Rajarhat Police Station and lodged a complaint registering GDE No. 768/2017 dated 13.02.2017 against the

Contd. .... 1/-

 2

OP. But in spite of that  the OP did not do the needful and it is most unfortunate that the said Police Station  also failed to take any suitable step against the OP. Finding no other way, the complainant has knocked  the door of the Consumer Forum for proper redress.

The OP has contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter-alia that the instant case is bad both in law and in fact and it is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complaint is frivolous, vexatious and speculative containing false allegations upon the OP and liable to be rejected U/s 26 A of the CP Act, 1986. The complaint is lack of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party.  The Insurance Company should be impleaded as necessary party to the instant complaint case. The OP submits that the complainant approached the OP for repairing of his accidental car and accordingly, the vehicle was received by the OP  for LH Frontal Damage  for insurance job  dated 06.09.2016. The OP submitted claim intimation on 06.09.2016 as per instruction of the complainant. Accordingly, the Insurance Company, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited appointed a Surveyor who surveyed the damaged vehicle on 08.09.2016 and issued work order to the OP on 15.09.2016.  The OP issued an estimate and expected billing amount of Rs. 70,000/- out of which the customer liability was fixed for Rs.27,000/-. The Insurance Company as well as the complainant requested to proceed with the repairing job  of the vehicle on 16.09.2016.  Accordingly, parts order was done on the same date and ordered parts were received on 25.09.2016. After completion of repairing work the OP intimated about completion of repairing and painting to the Insurance Company and the Complainant on 03.10.2016. The Insurance Company resurveyed the vehicle and the OP awaited delivery order and informed to the complainant the expected date of delivery on 04.10.2016. The OP received Delivery order from the Insurance Company on 06.10.2016 and accordingly informed the complainant regarding readiness, delivery and clearing of his liability. That after inspection of the vehicle the Complainant put objection regarding minor scratch and LH Sensor Damage.  After Puja Holidays, diagnosis done and ascertained that sensor need to be replaced. Correspondences were made with Honda and actual parts were received from Honda and order placed for 1^st Sensor dated 27.10.2016 1^st  Sensor was received from Honda on 23.11.2016 and after check,  found OK before fitting  but after installation found both sensors not working. Thereafter, thorough investigation carried out, circuit checked and re-diagnosis and to establish 2^nd Sensor serviceability status the OP need technical expertise from Honda and finally detected that 2^nd Sensor also not in working condition and therefore requisition made for parts.  After receipt of actual parts the OP placed order for 2^nd sensor on 23.12.2016 and on 27.12.2016 the OP received Sensor parts from Honda.  That on installation of Sensor parts before painting the OP found both Sensors in working condition but after painting and reinstalled it was found that both the Sensors were not in working condition. Accordingly, immediate diagnosis started which was very critical to establish the realty. After many attempts and consult with Honda Technical Support Group, it was established that the paint to Sensor is the cause and accordingly, the matter was informed to the complainant  and after painting retry  and reinstalled found not working and on being paint removed,  refitted  and then found Sensor OK and the complainant also gave consent  regarding painting issue  to remove the painting from Sensor Zone on 31.01.2017 and also raised bill for repairing of  the damaged vehicle.

Contd. .... 2/-

3

The Complainant along with his father visited the workshop on 13.02.2017 along with some police personnel with the demand of the car without making payment of repairing charges. The opposite party strongly disputed the attitude of the Complainant and asked for the repairing cost. Subsequently the Complainant lodged complaint before the Rajarhat Police Station against the OP with the allegation of withheld of the car and accordingly Rajarhat Police Station started investigation vide case no. 47/2017 dated 23.02.2017 under section 406 IPC. After enquiry the Rajarhat Police Station submitted report   vide FR No. 71/2017 dated 17.03.2017 as Mistake of Fact and closed the case. The Complainant did not challenge the said report and filed the instant complaint. The OP submits that the car is repaired and now defect free and ready for delivery against payment of repairing charges. But the complainant denied the repairing charges as claimed by the OP. The OP submits that the Honda Accord Car is manufactured in the year 2007 which met with an accident and the complainant produced the car at the workshop for repairing. But as the car is an old one at the time of repairing some other defects found and accordingly intimated the complainant which the complainant agreed to repair. As the car is manufactured in the year 2007 its spare parts are not readily available at the workshop and requisition has been made before the manufacturer which took time to bring from the manufacturer. And that apart at the time of installation again some difficulty cropped up which ultimately were sorted out.  After repairing the car the OP demanded the repairing charges which was not complied with by the complainant. The OP denied that they deliberately delayed repairing of the vehicle. Actually old version of Honda Accord 2007 manufactured after the lapse of 11 years it is difficult to arrange proper spare parts as Honda spare parts are not readily available in open market and all the dealers are dependent upon the manufacturer and therefore proper requisition has been made before the manufacturer and the manufacturer sent the spare parts which took some time and subsequently there was some problem regarding installation of Sensor which the OP consulted manufacturer’s technical experts and  ultimately the car got repaired with road worthy condition. The car in question  was ready for delivery and several requests have been made with the complainant for delivery either from the work shop or at his residence. The complainant initially agreed to accept delivery of the car at his residence but denied to pay the repairing cost which is highly unethical and not acceptable from the person like the complainant. The OP on good gesture reduced the cost by waiving Rs. 15,540/- but still the complainant denied payment. The OP submits that the car is ready for delivery but subject to payment of repairing cost in total of Rs.43, 697/-. The OP submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant are all baseless and therefore, is liable to be dismissed with cost.

On the pleading of both the parties, the following points have necessarily come up for determination:

1. Whether the OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant and has adopted unfair trade practice.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief / reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.

Contd. .... 3/-

 4

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 & 2:

             The above two points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            Both parties have tendered their evidence on affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed their BNAs.

We have travelled over the documents placed on record. Facts remain that the complainant brought the four wheeler vehicle under the name and style ACCORD 2.4 Maker of Honda Siel Cars Limited, Engine No. K24A4000808 Chassis No. MAKCM 562C7N300184 having registration No. WB 02 X 5113 to the OP Service Centre on 06.09.2016 for repairing the damages caused due to an accident.  The car was insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited. A Tax Invoice of Rs.67,357/- dated 04.10.2016 was raised by the OP where the complainant’s liability was Rs.27,657/- . Another Tax invoice of Rs.15,541/- dated 20.02.2017 was also raised by the OP in respect of the cost of sensor parts... The car was brought to the OP on 06.9.2016 for repairing the defect caused due to an accident. After repairing the defects the car was declared ready for delivery vide communication   through  mail dated 10.02.2017. As such  that there has been an inordinate delay of 05 months 04 days. This inordinate delay tantamounts  to deficiency in service. Moreover the OP has admitted the inconvenience caused to the complainant because of their poor service vide their mail dated 18.02.2017.

In the above set of circumstances, we deem it appropriate to partly allow the consumer complaint and to direct the OP to release the subject vehicle to the complainant  without any payment within 15 days from the date of this order . No compensation and litigation cost is allowed to the complainant in the fact and circumstances of the case.

All the points under determinations are disposed of.

.Hence,

ORDERED

That the Complaint Case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP  without any cost.

OP is directed to deliver the subject vehicle  to the Complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, failing which the Cmplainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.