Tripura

StateCommission

F.A 32/2014

Mr. Malay Kr. Deb - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Ford India Pvt.Ltd & 2 Others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P. Saha,Adv Mr.A.Debnath,Adv Mr.S.Pandit,Adv

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.F.A-32/2014

 

Mr. Malay Kr. Deb,

One of the Directors of

M/S Civil Engineering Consultancy Pvt.Ltd.

Arpita Bhavan, Jail Road, Banamalipur,

Agartala, Tripura West.

                    ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

                   Vs

1. The Managing Director, Ford India Pvt.Ltd.

S.P.Koli Post, Chengalpattu-603204, Tamilnadu.

 

2. The Branch Manager, Orcar Motors Pvt.Ltd. Corporate

Office B.K.Road, Banamalipur, Agartala-799001.

 

3. The In charge, Oscar Motors Pvt.Ltd.,

 Chinaihani Showroom, Airport, Agartala-799009.

                ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

 

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MR. NARAYAN Ch. SHARMA,

             MEMBER,

                STATE COMMISSION.

 

  

               

For the Appellant                :    Mr.P. Saha,Adv.

                                              Mr.S.Pandit,Adv.

                                              Mr.A.Debnath,Adv.

          For the respondent No.1      :    Mr.B.N.Majumder,Adv.

                                                        Mr.R.,Saha,Adv

                                                       

          For the respondent No.2 & 3 :    Mr.R.Datta,Adv.

Date of Hearing                    :   09.06.2015. 

Date of delivery of Judgment  :

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 17.10.2014 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 by the appellant-Malay Kr.deb is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-91 of 2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgment dismissed the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 without any cost.      

2. The case of the appellant-complainant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that the appellant with an intention to get his car bearing registration No.TR01 R 0276 (Ford Ikon car) repaired  in the workshop of the respondents went to the respondent No-3 and after giving detail description of works to be done, he left his aforesaid car in the workshop located at Chinaihani showroom, Airport, Agartala-799009 with an assurance that after 10/15 days the work would be completed and he would be intimated by the respondent No.3 to take delivery of his car by paying proper expenses and in the meantime, the complainant paid an advance of Rs.30,000/- only to the respondent No.3 for repairing of his car.                                                 
3. It is alleged that the respondents miserably failed to keep their commitment regarding repairing of the said vehicle as per assured time and ultimately, after passing of long six months the respondent No.3 informed the appellant to take delivery of his car, but at the time of taking delivery the appellant could recognize some troubles mentioned in the complaint in the said car and on asking about the said problems, the respondents misbehaved with the complainant and submitted a bill of Rs.1,21,152/- only towards the charge of the repairing of the car. It is also stated that moreover, on quarry about the specification parts changed and also about the warranty regarding the parts changed, they replied in a very rude manner that they would not supply any specification parts changed and also said that there is no warranty of any parts. It is further stated that the present appellant finding no alternative, as complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum, but the Ld. District Forum without appreciating the evidences passed the impugned judgment against the appellant.          
4.  That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum has erred both in law and facts and accordingly, arrived at the wrong conclusion which is liable to be set aside, that the Ld. Forum failed to apply his judicious mind in appreciation of evidences on record and arrived at a wrong conclusion, that the Ld. Forum did not consider the relevant provisions of law and wrongly and most arbitrarily passed the judgment dismissing the claim of the complainant, that the Ld. Forum has taken its own view without taking any expert opinion from any mechanical/technical engineers and passed the impugned judgment on the basis of imagination and as such, the impugned judgment being not proper and justified, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal praying for setting aside the same.            

Points for consideration.

5.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in passing the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside as prayed for.      

                         Decision with Reasons.

6.       Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant being registered owner of the vehicle No.TR01 R 0276 (Ford Ikon car) handed over his car to the workshop of the respondent No.3 on 10.01.2013 for some repairing works and thereafter, he also made payment of an advance of Rs.30,000/- towards the repairing charges. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 at that time assured the appellant that within 30/45 days the repairing works would be completed and thereafter, it would be handed over to him. He also submitted that the appellant visited many times to the workshop of the respondent No.3 for getting his car delivered after the completion of repairing works, but the respondent No.3 could not deliver the car within the time assured by him, rather after lapse of six months, the respondent No.3 informed the appellant-complainant that the car was ready for delivery. He also submitted that on being informed, the appellant went to the workshop of the respondent No.3 to take delivery of the car, but on going there he found that his car had still under some problems. He also submitted that when the appellant asked the staff of the respondent No.3 about the said problems of the car, he was misbehaved and not only so, the staff of the respondent No.3 submitted a bill of Rs.1,21,152/- towards the repairing charges of the car and asked for immediate payment of the balance amount. He also submitted that on being asked further, the staff of the respondent No.3 refused to supply him the specification of the parts of the car changed by them and also the warranty card concerning those changed parts. He further submitted that the finding no alternative, the complainant on 24.07.2013 issued an advocate’s notice to the O.Ps for their negligence and deficiency in service and as the opposite parties did nothing in this regard, in spite of notice, the complaint then lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in all against the O.Ps.   
8. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the respondent No.3 while handing over his car in the workshop for repairing purpose did not give him any job card containing requirements for repairing of his car. He also submitted that the appellant on 04.04.2013 visited the workshop of the respondent No.3 for taking delivery of his car, but then also he found many problems in his car for which he made an observation concerning those problems, but the respondent No.2 thinking the said observation as additional requirements for further repairing did the said repairing works, but failed to show any specification of the parts changed by them showing that further repairing work was actually done. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 at that time handed over a bill of Rs. 1,21,152/- showing that total charge required to be paid by the appellant in connection with the said repairing works of the car. He also submitted that initially it was stipulated that the repairing works would be completed within 30/45 days, but the respondent No.3 informed him to take delivery of the car after lapse of more than six months. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 was negligent and deficient in service in performing the repairing works in respect of the car of the complainant within the stipulated period for which the appellant suffered not only financially, but also mentally for getting his car delivered after repairing.    
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the respondent No.3 was negligent in not issuing any proper job card to the complainant and also failed to make the car ready for delivery after repairing within the stipulated period and thereafter the respondent No.3 did repairing works, if at all, although he failed to show any specification of the motor parts changed in course of repairing the car. Finally, he submitted that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the evidences and the facts and circumstances of the case and erroneously dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment and not only so, the Ld. District Forum failed to pass an order directing the respondent No.3 to deliver his car as the respondent No.3 failed to hand over the same to the complainant while he went to the workshop of the respondent No.3 for taking delivery for his car on 13.07.2013.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3 submitted that the appellant handed over his car to the respondent No.3 for repairing purpose on 14.01.2013, but not on 10.01.2013. He also submitted that admittedly, the car of the complainant was of an old model being model of 2000. He also submitted that in case of old model car, all the parts required for repairing purpose may not be available in the local market and in the instant case, the respondent No.3 had to take step for bringing some motor parts from the head office of the company at Chennai, Tamilnadu and for that an extra time of 25 to 30 days were taken. He also submitted that when the car of the complainant was made ready for delivery after repairing, the respondent No.3 informed the same to the complainant who came to the workshop of the respondent No.3 on 04.04.2013 for taking delivery of the said car, and at that time the complainant made some additional requirements for doing further repairing works in the said car. He also submitted that as per said additional requirement dated 04.04.2013, it was stipulated that the delivery of the car would be made after entire repairing by the end of the month of May. He also submitted that in this case also i.e. in connection with the repairing for the 2^nd phase the respondent No.3 had to bring parts from Tamilnadu and it was a time consuming matter and ultimately, after completion of the repairing works for the second phase as per additional requirements of the complainant, he was informed to take delivery of the car who came to the workshop on 13.07.2013. He also submitted that as per case of the complainant, he was not satisfied with the repairing works done in the 2^nd phase.   
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 also submitted that at that time the complainant was offered to take test drive of his car jointly with the staff of the respondent No.3 for checking as to whether the repairing works were done properly or not, but the complainant refused to do so jointly with the staff of the respondent No.3, rather, he wanted to take back his car from the workshop without making payment of the bill of repairing charges on the plea that he would take the test drive of the car alone after taking back the car released from the workshop.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 also submitted that the complainant was satisfied with the repairing works done in his car for the first phase, otherwise the complainant would not make additional requirements on 04.04.2013 for further repairing of his car in the 2^nd phase. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 did all the repairing works properly as per requisition of the complainant given in two separate times. He also submitted that the respondent No.3 being In charge of the workshop cannot release the car without being made payment of the repairing bill by the complainant and as such, the respondent No.3 was not at all negligent and diligent in providing service to the complainant. He also submitted that it is true that initially the complainant paid an advance of Rs.30,000/- towards the repairing charges, but the complainant did not make payment of the balance repairing charge of Rs.91,352/- and as such without making payment of the bill by the complainant, the respondent No.3 could not release the vehicle from the workshop as demanded by the complainant. He also submitted that the complainant has made an allegation that the job card was not issued while the complainant handed over his car to the workshop of the respondent No.3 for repairing purpose. He also submitted that the complainant as PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that the job card was issued and as such, the allegation so made by the complainant regarding non-issuance of the job card is totally false. He also submitted that due to the non-taking of the car from the workshop of the respondent No.3, the vehicle of the complainant is occupying a considerable place for which the respondent No.3 has been suffering financially by way of not getting opportunity to utilize the said place now occupied by the car of the complainant. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum considering all aspects of the case and finding actually no fault of the respondent No.3 and also finding the complainant at fault, dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment which being proper and justified should be upheld and the appeal should be dismissed.        
13. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 was present at the time of final hearing of the appeal from the side of the respondents, It should be mentioned here that initially the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the Managing Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd. was contesting the appeal, but thereafter and also on the date of final hearing of the appeal none was found present from the side of the respondent No.1. It is true that there is no allegation of manufacturing defects in the car of the complainant. It is also true that the complainant purchased the said car as a second-hand car. It is also true that the manufacturer of the car becomes a necessary party if there arises any problem concerning manufacturing of the car. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld. District Forum to the effect that the respondent No.1 is practically an un-necessary party to the matter in dispute.
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment and the memo of appeal. We have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides and found that there are certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the car of the complainant is a second-hand one purchased in the year 2007 bearing registration No. TRO1-R-0276 (Ford Ikon car). It is also admitted fact that the complainant visited the workshop of the respondent No.3 on 14.01.2013. The complainant as PW-1 admitted that on that date a job card was issued and he put his signature on the paper. So, it is found that the allegation of the complainant as submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that no job card was issued is not true. The PW-1 admitted that he also visited the workshop on 04.04.2013 and on that date he made some observations to the workshop in a paper in his own handwriting (Exhibit-A). Going through the said Exhibit-A, we find that actually it was not an observation, but it was made pointing out some problems in the car for repairing purpose, otherwise the complainant would not write such problems concerning his car on 04.04.2013. Although the complainant wanted to terms of the said endorsement as mere observation, but going through the Exhibit-A, we find that the same practically is nothing, but additional requirement necessitated in connection with the further repairing of the car. The complainant is admittedly a Civil Engineer. He knows the meaning of the word observation and additional requirement. Going through the impugned judgment, we are also in agreement with the finding of the Ld. District Forum that the endorsement of the complainant dated 04.04.2013 is practically additional requirement connected with the further repairing works of the car of the complainant. On the other hand, it makes it clear that the complainant was highly satisfied regarding the repairing works of his car done in the first phase as per job card issued for repairing purpose, otherwise the complainant on 04.04.2013 would not make further requirement for other repairing works of his car.
15. No allegation has been made anywhere in the complaint that the respondent No.3 demanded an exorbitant amount as repairing charges of the car. The PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he visited the workshop on 13.07.2013, but he did not make any test drive. As per case of the complainant, in the initial stage the respondent No.3 promised to give delivery of the car of the repairing within a period of 30/45 days. If we accept that the car after complainant was handed over to the workshop on 14.01.2013, it becomes 70 days on 04.04.2013 on which the complainant made additional requirement for further repairing of his car. It means that the complainant have no objection regarding the time of 70 days taken by the respondent No.3 instead of 45 days for repairing the car of the complainant in the first phase.
16. It has been explained that the car of the complainant being old model, its machinery parts required to bring from Tamilnadu and it was a time consuming matter and thereafter the respondent No.3 made all the repairing works as per additional requisition of the complainant in the 2^nd phase for the repairing purpose and when it was completed, the complainant was informed to take delivery of the car from the workshop and accordingly, the complainant came on 13.07.2013 for taking delivery of his car from the workshop of the respondent No.3. It has been alleged that when the complainant came to take delivery on 13.07.2013, he found many problems in the car and when he asked the staff about the problems, it has been alleged that he was misbehaved by the staff of the respondent No.3. But the question arises as to how the complainant came to know what are those problems cropped up even after the repairing for the 2^nd phase without making any test drive of the car. It appears to us that the allegation so made from the side of the complainant concerning the alleged problems in the car is found without any basis. Be that as it may, we find that the Ld. District Forum also meticulously considered this aspects of the case and found no truth in the alleged allegation.
17. It is true that the In-charge of the workshop cannot release the car after repairing unless the bill connected with the repairing works is paid. In the instant case, we find that the complainant at his own whim did not agree to make any test drive of his car jointly with the staff of the workshop. It appears to us that the joint test drive is appropriate for ascertaining as to whether the repairing works have been properly done or not. It also appears that the complainant, instead of making the test drive jointly, wanted to get his car released from the workshop without making any payment of the repairing bill on the plea that he would make test drive alone taking the car released from the workshop. In this regard, we are also in agreement with the finding of the Ld. District Forum. Of course, there is no bar on the part of the complainant-appellant to take back his car from the workshop of the respondent No.3 on making payment of the rest amount of the repairing bill to the respondent No.3.
18. Going through the impugned judgment, we find that the Ld. District Forum meticulously and thoroughly discussed all aspects of this case and ultimately arrived at the conclusion and dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment, which, according to us, calls for no interference by this Commission and as such having no merit in the appeal, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed.         
19. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C.91/2013 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.

 

          

                      MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                            State Commission                                    State Commission

                                    Tripura                                                      Tripura