Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/654/2022

Rakesh Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sukhbir Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Gupta

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/654/2022
Date of Institution	:	4/7/2022
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Rakesh Rai S/o Sh. Ram Prakash R/o H. No.3639, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh..

..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Sukhbir Motors, 1049, sector 82, JLPL, Mohali through its proprietor/ partner.

...Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Jashan Preet Singh Gill, Advocate for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant purchased an old car  make Audi Q3  of 2012  model (hereinafter referred to be as subject car) from the owner of Jalandhar Sweets, Sector 23, Chandigarh  vide affidavit Annexure C-1 and the registration of the same was also got registered in the name of the complainant and the copy of RC  is annexed as Annexure C-2.  The complainant wanted to get the subject car serviced as annual service of the same was due and also wanted to get few parts inspected and replaced including brakes pads,  front roters  and in order to get the said work done he visited the workshop of the Opposite party  and at that time the Opposite party had assured the complainant that he keeps genuine parts of the car like Audi, BMW and other luxury cars  and can provide regular service and replacement of parts if any. Accordingly on the persuasion  of the Opposite party, the complainant  handed over the subject car to the Opposite party for its service and repair of the faulty  parts  by way of replacement etc. After 4 days the complainant received a call from the Opposite party informing him that the vehicle has been fully repaired and is ready for delivery.  On this the complainant has taken the subject car from the Opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,12,000/-.  The complainant asked the Opposite party for the bill but the same was not provided by the Opposite party. However, later on when the complainant insisted for the said bill, the Opposite party handed over copy of the same Annexure C-3. Thereafter the complainant started plying the subject car as per his normal use but it was noticed  that  some noise was coming from the brakes pads and the flying wheel was also seemed to be giving some trouble and the car was not running smoothly. After observing the said defects in the subject car the complainant got the same inspected and diagnosed from the authorized Audi service centre at Chandigarh. Thereafter the  complainant was shocked to know that the diesel filter needed to be replaced  and also flying wheel  was not working properly as the same was making noise and the underbody engine sheet was also not there due to which fly wheel was required to be replaced  and the said repair work was not done by the OPs at the time of repair of the same.  On this the complainant got the diesel filter   replaced again and also got under body engine sheet fixed and paid a total amount of Rs.17,800/- to the authorized service centre  and copies of bills are annexed as Annexure C-4 (colly)  The flywheel of the car was needed to be replaced as per the advice  of the personal at Audi workshop having cost of Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter the complainant had taken the matter with the Opposite party but the Opposite party absolved himself from any responsibility by saying that the car was repaired properly with most perfection  and the Opposite party is not responsible for any subsequent expenses. The complainant again asked the Opposite party to provide him the replaced parts but it was informed by the Opposite party  that the same has been given in scrap and the copy of whatsapp chat is annexed as Annexure C-5. The complainant apprehended that the Opposite party has not replaced/ changed any part for which they have charged an amount of Rs.1,12,000/- from the complainant, thus, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.

1. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of  maintainability, concealment of facts, cause of action and also that the complainant is not consumer and on record admitted that the complainant after purchasing the subject car had approached the   Opposite party  for general service and got the subject vehicle serviced from the answering Opposite party. It was very much in the knowledge of the complainant being old customer that the answering Opposite party has well equipped and efficient workshop. The copy of invoice  Exhibit OP-3 suggests that the subject vehicle was got serviced from the answering Opposite party. It is denied that the Opposite party has not properly serviced or replaced the defective parts.  The complainant has paid the bill amount of Rs.1,12,000/- in two installments  and the RC of the subject vehicle  was provided by the complainant to the Opposite party on 27.4.2022 and thereafter the bill was accordingly generated on 2.5.2022. Even whatsapp chat Exhibit OP-5 itself makes it clear that the requisite service was provided to the complainant by the Opposite party. Even noise of the brakes was resolved by the answering Opposite party but the complainant insisted to replace the newly installed brake pads and on the insistence of the complainant even  new brake pads were installed free of cost on 12.4.2022, by raising zero bill Exhibit OP-6.   On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
2. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their respective claims the  parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant who is an old customer of the Opposite party, got the subject vehicle  serviced from Opposite party  and handed over the same to the Opposite party for service and repair of defective parts which was accordingly repaired by the Opposite party as is also evident from the invoice Annexure C-3, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party in providing service to the complainant for service and repair  of the subject car and certain parts were not replaced  by the Opposite party for which it charged from the complainant  and the said act of Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the Opposite party.
   2. As per case of the complainant, he got the subject car serviced/repaired from the Opposite party for which the Opposite party has raised bill of Rs.1,12,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the Opposite party. Further the complainant based his case on the tax invoice issued by authorized service centre of Audi  Annexure C-4, which indicates that the complainant got the fuel bleed and diesel fuel filter serviced  and got the filterelem replaced by apprehending that the Opposite party has not replaced other parts  as shown in Annexure C-3  for which  the Opposite party had charged from the complainant.
   3. A perusal of Exhibit C-4   at page 18 of the paper book of complaint reveals that  complainant asked for the replacement of fuel filter  but the authorized service centre of Audi only removed and re-installed the same after cleaning the same  whereas had replaced filterelem for which an amount of Rs.2095/- was charged from the complainant.
   4. A  meticulous screening of the invoice Annexure C-3  raised by the Opposite party, nowhere indicates  that the filterelem , which was replaced by the authorized service centre of the Audi was also earlier replaced by the Opposite party or that the Opposite party has charged anything  for the same from the complainant. Since the complainant has specifically alleged in para 13 of the complainant that he is apprehending  that the Opposite party has not replaced the other parts as shown in Exhibit C-3 copy of invoice issued by the Opposite party  for which the Opposite party has charged from the complainant  but has failed to prove on record if the parts as mentioned in tax invoice generated by the Opposite party had  not been replaced by the Opposite party  by leading any cogent evidence i.e. by getting the subject car inspected/diagnosed from any authorized or other expert about the replacement of the said parts, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove on record that the Opposite party has not replaced the said parts in the subject  car and has wrongly charged anything from the complainant.   
   5. So far as the claim of complainant qua scrap is concerned as it  has come on record that the complainant had not collected the scrap at the time of taking delivery of the subject car from the Opposite party nor he has asked for the said scrap  and has asked the Opposite party after long time for the said scrap, which was not kept by the Opposite party for the long time, as such even to that extent the complainant has no cause of action against the Opposite party.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member