Orissa

Cuttak

CC/1/2018

Gopal Charan Sasmal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Sky Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

22 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C. no.01/2018

         Gopala Chandra Sasmal

         At:Chanduli,P.O:Sarichuan,

         Dist:Cuttack-754112..              ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.                        

 

     1.        The Manager/Proprietor,

    M/s. Sky Automobiles,

    N.H-5,Bhanapur,Cuttack-753011.

 

            2.        The Manager,

     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

     1, Nelson Mandira Marg,

     Pocket10,Sector-B,Vasant Kunj,

     New Delhi-110070.                                                             ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    10.01.2018

Date of Order:  22.06.2023

 

For the complainant:         Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1       :         Mr. S.C.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2       :     Mr. B.C.Sahu,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that his Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Car bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AU-8199 had met with an accident at Chanduli for which he had given his vehicle for repair to the workshop of O.P no.1 on 23.2.2015.  After inspection, the Surveyor of the Insurance Company had estimated the cost of repair to be of Rs.4,44,648.20p and the complainant was given assurance that the vehicle will be completed by June,2015.  The complainant had paid advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 3.4.15 but the vehicle could not be repaired as per the date given to him, rather the O.P had demanded Rs.1,00,525/- and the same was also paid by the complainant on 30.1.016.He has also paid an amount of Rs.35,525/- and Rs.65,000/- to the O.P. and in total the complainant had paid Rs.2,50,525/- to the O.P towards repair of his car.  In the month of October,2016, he received a call from the O.P Firm that the repair of his car is complete and he has to pay the balance amount as per the final bill which is of Rs.5,27,071/.  According to the complainant, the O.P firm had completely failed to provide proper service as they had kept his car with them for long 20 months from the accident month but they had committed to repair the same in four months and should have returned his car to him by June,2015.  The complainant further alleges that without any ground they are demanding Rs.90,000/- extra from him.  Thus, the complainant has come up with this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to reduce the bill amount to Rs.3,50,000/- and to deduct therefrom  the amount which he has already paid or in the alternative to provide him a new vehicle upon payment of all the additional payments that was due from him towards his repaired vehicle.  The complainant has further claimed compensation from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and for his litigation expenses he has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case but have filed their separate written versions.  As per the written version of O.P no.1, the repairing cost of the car of the complainant was of Rs.5,32,029/- and it was not possible to perform all the repairing works of the said car with the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only.  After several requests, the complainant had hesitatingly paid a sum of Rs.2,50,525/- to them.  The complainant was asked to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,81,504/- but wilfully he remained silent and avoided paying the said amount and thereby to receive his vehicle.  The vehicle of the complainant was made ready on 28.4.16 and a letter was issued asking him to take delivery of his car on 8.8.16.  Again, the O.P no.1 had issued letters to the complainant on 7.3.17 and 7.4.17 but the complainant had remained silent, rather had issued legal notice to O.P no.1 on 12.4.17.  It is further averred by O.P no.1 in his written version that since because the complainant remained silent and the said vehicle of the complainant is lying without running for the last two years of his filing his written version, further maintenance may be required for the said vehicle which can also be provided after the complainant meets all its expenditures.  Thus, it is the prayer of the O.P no.1 to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant with cost. 

          Together with his written version, the O.Ps have filed copies of letters addressed to the complainant asking him to take back his vehicle or to pay the parking fee per day till it is taken away.

          The O.P no.2 through his written version has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  The complainant had maliciously filed this case with oblique motive.  According to O.P no.2, the case of the complainant deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

3.Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

                      i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

                      ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of  the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

The complainant has filed a certificate as given by one Dhuna Chandra Raul who has passed Diploma in Automobile Engineering as per his report.  The said Mr. Raul had mentioned in his certificate that the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AU-81997 was given to the O.P no.1 firm at Bhanpur,Cuttack for its repair on 23.2.15 and hearing from the said Firm to take delivery of the vehicle on 13.10.16 he had accompanied the complainant to the workshop of O.P no.1 but the vehicle could not be started though he had tried and the car,  according to him was found to be defective due to unhealthy repair.  He has further urged in his certificate that the revised estimate towards the repairing cost of the vehicle is enhanced by O.P no.1 firm and as a technical person he finds no justification for such additional repair cost of the complainant which according to him is doubtful.

Issue no.ii.

               Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

                 After going through all the averments as made in the complaint petition, written versions, certificate of Mr. D.C.Raul and after perusing all the connecting documents as filed here in this case, it is noticed that the Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire car belonging to the complainant having Regd. No.OR-05AU-8199 had met with an accident for which it was given for repair to the O.P no.1 firm on 23.2.15 which is not disputed.  According to the admission of the complainant, the estimated cost of repair by the surveyor was of Rs.4,44,648.20p.  As per the copies of documents filed by the complainant, it is noticed that he had paid to the O.P firm a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-on 3.4.2015 and on 3.1.16 also he had paid Rs.65,000/- and Rs.35,525/- to the O.P firm.  The copy of the pre-invoice service report reflects that the vehicle was ready on 13.10.16.  Copies of letters as annexed by O.P no.1 goes to show that the O.P no.1 firm had written to the complainant on 8.8.16,4.2.16 and on 7.4.17 in order to collect his car bearing Regd. No.OR-05AU-8199.  But O.P no.1 has not filed any document to prove that if those letters had been duly served on the complainant of this case.  Be that as it may, as per the certificate of the Diploma in Automobile Engineer, Mr. D.C.Raul, claims that he had accompanied to the complainant to the workshop of O.P no.1 on 13.10.16 but according to him, the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.OR-05AU-8199 could not be started.  He also opined that the additional repairing charges were exorbitant and the repair works as done were unhealthy.  If this be so, the complainant himself not mentioned about the said fact in his complaint petition that infact he had visited the O.P no.1 firm alongwith the said Automobile Engineer Mr. Raul who had tried to start the repaired car but he could not do it and that the said so-called technical expert had opined about the unhealthy repair and exorbitant additional repairing charges.  Thus, filing of such a certificate by the complainant appears to be afterthought and nothing else. 

          On thorough scrutiny, it is noticed that the vehicle was given for repair on 23.2.15 but the complainant had paid the advance amount towards the repair on 3.4.15.  He has further paid subsequently Rs.65,000/- and Rs.35,525/- to the O.P no.1 firm on 30.1.16.  This delayed payment as made by the complainant tilts our eye brows.  The complainant has urged in his complaint petition that O.P no.1 firm had assured him that the repair work of his vehicle would be completed by June,2015 but there is no scrap of paper filed to that effect by the complainant in order to enable this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that though the complainant was assured regarding delivery of his vehicleto him by June,2015 after repair andby not doing so, the O.Ps are at fault of deficiency in their service.  Rather, as it is gathered from the clinching evidences available in this case record, the delay was not from the side of the O.Ps but it was due to the wilful delay of the complainant only.  Accordingly, this Commission comes to a conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case in order to implicate them.  This issue thus goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

             From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                          ORDER

                      Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

                             Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of June,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member