CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/302/12
Date of Institution:- 31.07.2012
Order Reserved on:- 01.04.2024
Date of Decision:- 03.05.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Bhim Singh,
RZ-D-32-A, Syndicate Enclave,
Raghu Nagar, New Delhi - 110045
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
521, NangliSakrawatiIndl. Area,
Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043
.…..Opposite Party
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 17.11.2011 he has left his vehicle bearing no. DL1YC3547 for repairs with OP. The OP assured that repairs will be done in 15 days. The repairs have not been done till 22.03.2012 on which day OP told that work will be completed by 26.03.2012. The OP has not repaired the vehicle even after receiving a cheque of Rs.97,230/- from the insurance company on 25.02.2012. The vehicle is source of livelihood for him. This has caused heavy loss to him so he is entitled for Rs.20,000/- per month from December, 2011 to March, 2012. A legal notice dated 02.04.2012 was served upon the OP but in vain. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP did not put the appearance despite due service as a result OP was proceeded ex-parte on 04.04.2013.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in ex-parte evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint.
- The complainant has not turned up to address the arguments so the case was reserved for an order by keeping in view the fact that it is very old case.
- The perusal of the file shows that complainant has annexed invoiceissued by OP that vehicle has been received for repairs/job work on 17.11.2011 and cost of the repair is Rs.2,01,972/-. The OP has received a sum of Rs.97230/- from the insurance company. The balance amount of Rs.104742/- was to be paid by the complainant. The invoice further shows that the complainant can collect the vehicle on 26.03.2012.
- The complainant has not disclosed whether he has paid the entire repair charges to the OP or not or whether insurance company has paid the entire repair charges to the OP. The insurance company has only paid a sum of Rs.97230/- to the OP. The complainant has to pay the repair charges before the delivery of vehicle by the OP.
- It is not the case of the complainant that OP has not delivered the vehicle despite the receipt of entire repair charges from him. The complainant has to pay the balance repair charges before taking the vehicle from the OP.
- There is no evidence that complainant has paid the entire repair charges to the OP. In the absence of such evidence, the complainant cannot allege that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP by retaining the vehicle.
- The evidence on the record does not show that there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP.
- In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 03.05.2024.
