Haryana

Karnal

107/2014

Anand S/o Ram Charan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sidak Automobile Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunclor Lal Gupta

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                Complaint No.107 of 2014

                                                               Date of instt. 17.04.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 15.06.2017

 

Anand son of Shri Ram Charan Singh, resident of House no.168, ward no.28, Shiv Nagar, Panipat.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainant.       

 

                                                         Versus

 

Sidak Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 71/3, Milestone, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

                                        

                                                                            ………..Opposite Party.

 

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                  

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani………Member

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Sh. Sanjay Gupta Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for opposite party.

 

ORDER:                    

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Fabia F/L Elegance MT 1.2 TDI car from opposite party for a sum of Rs.6,69,000/-, vide invoice no.A0082011000263 dated 26.3.2011. The car was got insured with TATA AIG Insurance Company for one year. On 25.4.2011 the car met with an accident and was badly damaged. The car was brought to the workshop of the opposite party with the help of crane for repair. On 27.5.2011 the opposite party sent a message to him about the repair of the car, but when he reached at the workshop for getting delivery he found that the car did not start. Therefore, he had to leave the car at the workshop for complete and proper repair. The opposite party assured that due intimation would be given to him as and when the car would be repaired. After waiting a lot, when no intimation was received, he approached the opposite party and asked about the latest position of the car. The opposite party went on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he got served a legal notice dated 28.9.2013 upon the opposite party, but the same also did not yield any result. Thereafter, he sent reminders dated 28.2.2014 and 19.3.2014, but to no effect. The car  has not been repaired by the opposite party and the same is being kept in the workshop without any sufficient rhyme and reason. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainant has no locus standi and that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that on 6.2.2011 the car was brought by the complainant to the workshop of the opposite party in damaged condition and with starting problem. On checking, the engineer of the opposite party found that there was no coolant in the engine due to leakage. Oilpan was opened and water was found therein. The engineer got replaced the accidental damaged fender, radiator, front windshield, airbag unit, airbag control module and airbag steering, but the car could not be started, therefore, the engineer got online assistance of the engineer of the manufacturer, who made query and asked to provide vehicle case history and accidental details and advised to rotate the engine manually and check whether the same rotated freely or not. As suggested by the engineer of the manufacturer of the vehicle, the engineer of the opposite party checked the engine manually and found that it rotated freely. After seeing the photographs of the accidental vehicle, the engineer of the manufacturer suggested the engineer of the opposite party to replace the EGR. Earlier, the engine was moving, but after replacement of EGR cooler stopped moving manually.  Thereafter, the engineer of the manufacturer suggested the engineer of the opposite party to replace the oil pump and share observations regarding crank and connecting rods. After replacement of the oil pump, the problem remained same.  Then the engineer of the opposite party dismantled the assembly and found the severe damages. On the advice of the engineer of the manufacturer, the piston and the connecting rods were dismantled and it was found that the connecting rods were heated up and pistons were seized. Thereafter, the engineer of the manufacturer suggested to replace the complete engine for which no policy was applicable. The opposite party informed the complainant about replacement of the complete engine of the vehicle, vide letter dated 5.2.2013, but the complainant did not respond. Finding no other alternative, the opposite party sent letter dated 9.2.2013 to the complainant, but the complainant did not respond to that also. The complainant was informed that the opposite party was shifting the vehicle to its stock yard and he was asked to pay Rs.2,05,000/- as parking charges of 685 days in addition to the settled dues against repairs/services. However, the complainant has not disclosed all these facts in his complaint. In this way, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and C3 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Tarsem Lal Garg Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, one Skoda car was purchased by the complainant from  opposite party on 26.3.2011 and the same met with an accident on 25.4.2011. The car was shifted to the opposite party for repair. The pleadings of the opposite party indicate that some repairs of the car were carried out, but the engine could not be started despite seeking advice of the engineer of the manufacturer. Ultimately, the engineer of the manufacturer suggested replacement of the engine. Letter dated 5.2.2013 was sent to the complainant in that regard, but he did not respond. Thereafter, another letter dated 9.2.2013 was sent to the complainant informing that the car would be shifted to the stock yard. It is also admitted fact that the car is still lying at the workshop of the opposite party.

7.                The opposite party has produced the copies history card of the car, retail invoices regarding repairs carried out and the details of the steps carried out for repair the engine of the car Ex. OP3 to Ex.OP6. A perusal of Ex.OP6 clearly indicates that engineer of the opposite party had made efforts to remove the defects in the car regarding starting problem and even sought suggestion from the engineer of the manufacturer, but the defect could not be removed and ultimately the engine was dismantled and found to be beyond repairs, therefore, replacement of the engine was suggested. The opposite party had written a letter to the complainant dated 5.2.2013 to which the complainant did not respond and thereafter the opposite party sent letter dated 9.2.2013, the copy of which is Ex.OP1.

8.                The car of the complainant met with accident on 25.04.2011. It is clear from Ex-OP6 that the engineer of the manufacturer suggested to replace the engine on 21.07.2011. The copy of letter dated 09.02.2013 Ex-OP1 indicates that one letter dated 05.02.2013 was also sent by the opposite party to the complainant, but the copy of the said letter has not been placed on the record. There was no correspondence of the opposite party with the complainant till 05.02.2013.  In the written statement, it has been pleaded that opposite party informed the complainant about the replacement of the complete engine, vide letter dated 05.02.2013, but complainant did not respond. However, the retail in voice Ex-OP5 dated 08.02.2013 goes to show that the parts required for over hauling the engine were mentioned therein. The complainant had not responded to the letter dated 05.02.2013, therefore, there could be no question of over hauling of the engine. Thus, the retail in voice Ex-OP5 runs contrary to the pleadings of the opposite party. If, the engine required replacement, the complainant should have been informed immediately, but that was not done by the opposite party. During the period of more than one and half year the car remained in the work shop of the opposite party, without any fault on the part of the complainant. During that period neither the complainant was informed that the engine required replacement nor he was asked to take away the car from the workshop on the ground that engine was not repairable. The opposite party in such situation could not claim any amount from the complainant against the parking charges till sending the notice dated 09.02.2013.  Thus, from the facts and circumstances, it is established that the engineer of the manufacturer suggested replacement of the engine on 21.07.2011, but the opposite party remained silent, thereafter till sending the letter dated 05.02.2013. Such conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in the service. The complainant must have suffered physical and mental harassment on account of not getting information about repair of his car for such a long period, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the complaint party and direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 15.06.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

          (Veena Rani)                 (Anil Sharma)

           Member                       Member