Order No. 13 dt. 14/03/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an owner of a Hyundai car. The said car met with an accident on 14.12.14. After the said accident the complainant took the car to the repairing centre of o.p. and after examination of the car it was stated that the car was damaged to a great extent and in order to make the car usable the complainant estimated a bill of Rs.36,926/-. The complainant was informed that he will be able to collect the car from the service centre on 29.10.14. On 20.10.14 while the complainant visited the work shop he found that the fan belt needs to be replaced before going for a long journey and he met the Service Manager and after inspection by a mechanic the complainant was told that gear box housing was damaged and replacement of clock spring and air filter is required. There was a big hole found in the gear box resulting in the leakage of the oil. Thereafter the complainant requested the attendant at the Spring Hyundai to collect the car from Bengal Hyundai work shop but he refused and the complainant was told that if the gear box remained damaged he would not have been able to start the car. The complainant thereafter asked for repairing of the defect and paid an amount of Rs.20,011/-.
In view of such irresponsible act on the part of o.p. the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the amount of Rs.36,926/- and also to pay the cost of Rs.20,011/- which was paid by the complainant to Bengal Hyundai Service Centre and further prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs for deficiency in service and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that after the accident the car was brought to their work shop on 15.12.14 for repairing. The service advisor thoroughly checked the car and subsequently repaired the damaged parts and after completion of the road test with the said owner of the car who after being satisfied received the car. The service advisor of the workshop of o.p. observed that the owner should change the fan belt of the car before any long drive but the said owner had taken the matter casually. The o.p. denied that for replacing the fan belt the car was again inspected by mechanic and after checking every parts of the car the complainant was told the gear box housing was damaged and replacement of clock spring and air filter was required or there was a big hole found in the gear box resulting the leakage of the oil and endangered the life and safety of the complainant.
It was further stated that at the time of test drive if the gear box housing of the said vehicle was damaged from the initial stage when the car was brought to the work shop of o.p. the car would not have been able to move smoothly at the time of test driving and moreover the owner cannot drive the car so easily and to travel at least 60 kms. without getting any short of indication. The o.p. further stated that the complainant in order to make false allegation against the o.p. manufactured the incident of detection of the fault in the said car and thereby o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant after the accident sent the car to o.p. for repairing.
- Whether after repairing of the said car some defects still persisted.
- Whether the complainant had to bear further expenses for repairing of his car.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant while using the car in and around the city of Kolkata and met with an accident on 14.12.14. After the said accident the complainant went at the garage of o.p. for repairing of the car. After repairing the complainant found that there was several defects for which the complainant had to repair further in Bengal Hyundai Service Centre and he had to bear the expenses of Rs.20,011/-. The complainant further unnecessarily charged for the repairing of the vehicle by another workshop and the complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.36,926/-. In spite of payment of the said amount the repairing was made by the o.p. properly and subsequently after the detection of the various faults in the car the complainant had to send the car to another repairing centre and had to bear the expenses of Rs.20,011/-. Ld. lawyer emphasized that at the time of repairing of the car in the garage of o.p. the defect was not totally removed and it was found that there was a big hole in the gear box causing dropping of oil which could have endangered the life of the complainant. In view of the said fact the complainant prayed for compensation and other damages.
Ld. lawyer for o.p. argued that the complainant in order to build up a false case manufactured some incident which are not at all believable. After repairing of the car and the test was made along with the owner of the car and on being satisfied with the repairing work the complainant accepted the car. Subsequently the complainant made some allegations which are not at all believable. The complainant after the repairing of the car drove for more than 60 kms. if that would have been the fact and if there would have been hole in gear box and dropping of oil from the tank in that event the car would not have run for 60 kms. The complainant in order to squeeze the money from o.p. made such wild allegations which is not at all believable and accordingly o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant in the petition of complaint as well as in the evidence stated that the car met with an accident on 14.12.14. After the said accident the complainant took the car in the garage of o.p. The o.p. after inspection through their engineer came to the conclusion that some repairing are required to be made for using the car on road. The o.p. before undertaking the work pointed out the defects found in the said car. The complainant being satisfied with the estimation made by o.p. agreed to the said proposal of the repairing made by o.p. Accordingly the repairing work was made and the complainant paid the amount. After completion of the repairing work the test drive was made along with the owner of the car and on being satisfied with the repairing work in the said car the complainant paid the amount charged by o.p. and delivery of the car was taken from o.p. by the complainant. It is admitted fact that the complainant afterwards drove the car for 60 kms. and subsequently he raised objection that the o.p. did not repair the other works viz. the hole in the gear box as well as other allied repairing work for which the life of the complainant would have been at stake. It is hardly believable that the complainant after repairing of the car took delivery and test drive was made along with the mechanic and he did not find any fault after the said repairing and the complainant drove the car 60 kms. Subsequently he made detection of the defect in another garage that the hole was created in the box and there was every possibility of leakage of oil from the tank which could have caused serious consequences and could have taken the life of the complainant. The said fact is not at all believable if such defect would have been there even after the repairing of the car the car would not have run in another 60 kms. The complainant in order to make false claim against the o.p. manufactured some incident which are not at all believable and therefore we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.238/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
