Judgment dated 06-06-2016

            This is a complaint made by Molay Kumar Ghosal Kumar of Sunderbans of 533, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata- 700 063 against Manager/Owner of Vehicle Repairing Garage of 70, Mitra Colony (James Long Sarani), P.S. Behala, Kolkata-700 034 and Sk. Abdul Sattar of  70, Mitra Colony (James Long Sarani), P.S. Behala, Kolkata-700 034 praying for a direction upon the OPs to complete all the repairing works and plant a Flag Pole and a total consideration of Rs.7,64,000/- and leave to submit supplementary affidavits, petitions and prayers.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is law abiding citizen and resides under this jurisdiction of this Forum that Complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for repairing of Ambassador Car Mark III bearing No.WMC 8891. The agreement was for Rs.15,000/- as repairing cost. Complainant paid Rs.9,000/-  and Rs.7,000/- by two cheques. OPs withdrew the amount.

            Petitioner purchase a new two wheeler bearing no.WB 02 AB 0438. Complainant did not pressurize for repairing. For renewal of tax token and insurance Complainant took back WMC 8891 and found that the vehicle was making unusual noise and doors and windows were not being closed properly. Complainant renewed tax token and insurance after paying Rs.24,000/-. Complainant requested the OPs for making the repairs but of no use. So he filed this complaint.

            Against this OP No.2 Sk. Abdul Sattar filed written version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint. Further allegation of OP No.2 is the vehicle was repaired completely and petitioner took the vehicle after being satisfied about the repair. So, OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decisions with reasons

            On the basis of facts in complaint, the case was admitted on 05-11-2014. Thereafter, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version. Complainant made submission to treat contents of the complaint as evidence on affidavit. Thereafter, the case was fixed for questionnaire when the case was taken to South 24-Parganas Forum.

            On the prayer of the Complainant Hon’ble State Commission transferred this case to this Forum from South 24-Parganas Forum. Further it appears that the OP did not take any step and Complainant prosecuted the case.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of first relief it appears that Complainant has sought for a direction upon the OPs for completing the repairing works. In this regard there are different versions of Complainant as well as OP No.2. Complainant has submitted that repair was not made. Whereas OP No.2 has submitted that Complainant took vehicle after being satisfied of the repair.

            There is no detailed mentioned in complaint petition as to which repairs work was not made.           

           Further on perusal of relief No.2 there is vague allegations  of an amount of Rs.2,64,000/- in hand but later it has been pen through and further it is written Rs.64,000/-. It is not clear for what this Rs.64,000/- has been mentioned in relief 2.

           Prayer No.3 is for submission of supplementary affidavits, petitions, prayers and evidence which Complainant was at liberty to file and make and he did so.

          So it appears that the prayers made by Complainant are vague and there is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations of the Complainant.

            Accordingly, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief.

            Hence,

O R D E R E D

RBT/CC/112/2015 is dismissed ex-parte against OP No.1 and on the basis of written version filed by OP No. 2.

Hence, RBT/CC/112/2015 stands disposed of.