Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he got his Creta Car insured with Oriental Insurance Company vide policy No. 233904/31/2018/3284 valid for the period w.e.f. 16.02.2019 till 15.02.2020 against paid up premium of Rs.27,664/- and said vehicle met with an accident on 25.08.2019.  Further alleges that the complainant alongwith his friends Amarjit Singh and Rakesh Singh approached the Opposite Party to assess the damage of the car and told that said vehicle is fully insured and he has to take compensation from the insurance company and for this, he has to need Pakka bills of the repair. At this, the Opposite Party told that the vehicle in question will be perfect like new one and he estimated the costs of total disposal window and all other new parts between Rs.3,70,000/- to Rs.3,80,000/- including Rs.1 lakh of disposal window, denting painting plus total labour. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the car in question to Opposite Party for its repair on 31.08.2019. At this, Opposite Party raised the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- as first payment which the complainant paid vide cheque and then again, the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh on 12.10.2019 and then Rs.1,25,000/- on 7.11.2019 and in this way, total amount of Rs.3,75,000/- paid by the complainant  to the Opposite Party through different cheques.  Thereafter, the Opposite Party handed over the vehicle after its repair on 07.11.2019 to the complainant, but it was not upto the mark as  the vehicle had old meter of base model running 21000  KM already and neither audio head unit including LCD music system, timer, new dashboard, rear camera were installed which costs approximately Rs.1 lakhs. The side mirror was not working properly. The spare wheels and tire installed by Opposite Party were old one. Similarly, the rim was very old. After seeing all he ambiguities, the complainant contacted the Opposite Party in this regard as he was not satisfactory with the work done by the Opposite Party, nor the Opposite Party issued any pakka bill as per the commitment to get the insurance claim. There are other so many problems in the car in  question which were not properly rectified by the Opposite Party despite charging the amount from the complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party time and again, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant.  In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       The Opposite Party may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,29,482/- + Rs.50,000/- on account of deficient services, mental tension, harassment with costs of this  complaint or any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted.       

2.       Opposite Party   appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous.  It is submitted that the complainant is himself a car dealer and he used to get his accidental vehicles repaired from Opposite Party in order to sell them to the customers. In the month of August, 2019, the complainant approached the Opposite Party alongwith his car Creta SX Model 2016 bearing RC No.PB-29W-7007 which was totally damaged in a accident due to fall in water. The Opposite Party inspected the damaged car and gave an estimate of Rs.4.50 lakhs to Rs.4.75 lakhs to the complainant and thereafter, as per the commitment and agreement of the complainant with Opposite Party,  the Opposite Party made his level best to repair the said vehicle and the Opposite Party had installed the different parts as well as done denting painting work of the car and approximately the Opposite Party spent  an amount of Rs.3.80,000/- to Rs.4 lakhs on the repair work and out of this, the complainant has only paid an amount of rs.3,40,000/- to the Plaintiff on different dates i.e. 31.08.2019 Rs.1,50,000/- then on 12.10.2019 Rs.1 lakhs and then on 7.11.2019 Rs.1,25,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- is still due towards the complainant which he has not paid to the Opposite Party till today. The above said Creta car of the complainant remained kept in the garage of the Opposite Party for about 3 months and during the said period, the complainant also got repaired his other cars Alto as well as Santro and an amount of Rs.35,000/- were the labour charges of the Opposite Party for the repair work of Alto Car and Santro. The Opposite Party made so many requests to the complainant to clear his due amount, but the complainant always lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and thereafter, the complainant hatched conspiracy and to avoid the payment of the Opposite Party, he has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. Not only this, the Opposite Party also reported the matter to Police Chowki where the complainant did not appear despite issuance of notice again and again to the complainant  and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.    On merits, Opposite Party took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Ex.C18 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party  tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R16 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions of the Opposite Party and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant is that after charging the amount on account of repair charges of the vehicle in question, the Opposite Party did not rectify the defects in the vehicle to the  satisfaction of the complainant nor Opposite Party  issued any Pakka Bill of the repairs and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the complainant is himself a car dealer and he used to get his accidental vehicles repaired from Opposite Party in order to sell them to the customers. Further contended that in the month of August, 2019, the complainant approached the Opposite Party alongwith his car Creta SX Model 2016 bearing RC No.PB-29W-7007 which was totally damaged in a accident due to fall in water. The Opposite Party inspected the damaged car and gave an estimate of Rs.4.50 lakhs to Rs.4.75 lakhs to the complainant and thereafter, as per the commitment and agreement of the complainant with Opposite Party,  the Opposite Party made his level best to repair the said vehicle and the Opposite Party had installed the different parts as well as done denting painting work of the car and approximately the Opposite Party spent  an amount of Rs.3.80,000/- to Rs.4 lakhs on the repair work and out of this, the complainant has only paid an amount of Rs.3,40,000/- to the Plaintiff on different dates i.e. 31.08.2019 Rs.1,50,000/- then on 12.10.2019 Rs.1 lakhs and then on 7.11.2019 Rs.1,25,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- is still due towards the complainant which he has not paid to the Opposite Party till today. The above said Creta car of the complainant remained kept in the garage of the Opposite Party for about 3 months and during the said period, the complainant also got repaired his other cars Alto as well as Santro and an amount of Rs.35,000/- were the labour charges of the Opposite Party for the repair work of Alto Car and Santro. The Opposite Party made so many requests to the complainant to clear his due amount, but the complainant always lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and thereafter, the complainant hatched conspiracy and to avoid the payment of the Opposite Party, he has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous grounds. It is further contended that after rectifying the defects in the vehicle in question by the Opposite Party,  the complainant has nowhere brought these problems/ defect in question in the knowledge of the Opposite Party nor produced any job sheet in this regard or any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, neither the complainant has ever produced any expert opinion to prove that the subject vehicle  suffers from any problems or to establish any defects in the vehicle in question. In this regard, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Dr.K.Kumar Advisor (Engineering) Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Dr.A.S.Narayana Rao & Anr (1 (2010) CPJ 19 NC  for the necessity of expert evidence to prove the submissions of defects in the vehicle made in the complaint. Not only this, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttrakhand while passing order in First Appeal No. 89 of 2010; Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ms. Nujhat and another and First Appeal No. 215 of 2010; C.K. Birla, Director vs. Ms. Nujhat and another, has discussed a case Classic Automobiles vs. Lila Nand Mishra and another; I (2010) CPJ 235 (NC).  In this case, the Hon'ble National Commission has laid down the law that onus to prove the defect in the vehicle lies on the complainant and further that expert evidence need to be produced to prove defect in the vehicle. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove any defect/ problem after removing the defects by the Opposite Party  in the car in question. Hence, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.