BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 49 of 2012
Mr. Salak Ahmed Laskar, ……………..………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. The Owner/Proprietor, Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd.
(Showroom & Workshop)
Ramnagar, Silchar-788008, Dist.- Cachar, Assam O.P No.1.
2. The Manager, Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd.
(Showroom & Workshop)
Ramnagar, Silchar - 788008O.P No.2. Dist.- Cachar, Assam O.P.No.2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mr. Shamim Ahmed, Advocate for the Complainant.
Sri Ajoy Kumar Roy, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 22-05-2013, 12-07-2013
Date of written argument……………… 16-05-2017
Date of oral argument………………….. 28-11-2017
Date of judgment……………………….. 30-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- The complaint brought by Salak Ahmed Laskar under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the owner/Proprietor and Manager of Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Showroom and Workshop), Ramnagar, Silchar for award of compensation of total Rs.2,52,800/- on the allegation that the O.P delivered/released his Mahindra Maxximo Mini Van bearing Engine No. MCB6C12517 and Chasis No.MA1FBZMCRB6C40143 after inordinate delay of 99 (Ninety nine) days from the workshop.
- The complainant in his complaint made allegation against the O.P as below:
He purchased the aforesaid vehicle on 01-06-2011 from O.P. As the vehicle started various problem so he brought the vehicle within the guarantee period on 25-01-2012 to the workshop of the O.P but the O.P did not deliver the vehicle after repairing on date of delivery, rather refixed date after dates and subsequently replaced the engine with brand new one and delivered the vehicle after 99 days.
- As a consequence, the earning of complainant from the commercial use of the vehicle suffered. Moreover, due to non-earning for the aforesaid period, he failed to repay installment of loan of that vehicle and for which the Financer repossessed the vehicle and the complainant paid Rs.34,000/- to finance to restore possession.
- The O.P in their W/S admitted the fact that the vehicle was taken on 25-01-2012 for repairing and delivered after altering the engine on 03-05-2012. To justify the period of 99 days of keeping the vehicle for repairing purpose stated inter-alia as below in the W/S:-
“16. That, on 25-01-2012, the complainant brought the vehicle into the workshop of the O.P having faced some starting problem in it. The tech-experts of the O.P after proper checking discovered that the fault was a major one, which will take few days for rectification and then informed the complainant duly that the fault is a major one and will take some time for rectification. 17. That, on that note, the experts of the O.P stated to work on the fault but the fault being a major one was difficult to be rectified by experts in Silchar. So, they sought advice from Guwahati tech-experts regarding the problems. But the Guwahati tech-experts of the company after necessary checkups opined to replace the engine. The tech-experts were of opinion that such kind of problems usually arise from filling adulterated fuel and excess load as permitted by the vehicle”.
- Thus, as per the O.Ps there was no willful delay on the part of the O.P. They also stated that all updates and works going on with the vehicle during the entire period was reported time to time to the complainant.
- During hearing the complainant adduced evidence and exhibited some documents. The O.P also submitted deposition of Sri Manas Kumar Das the Manager of M/S Smart Motors Pvt. Ltd. and exhibited some relevant papers. After closing evidence, the complainant’s engaged lawyer submitted written argument but the O.P did not submit written argument. Of course, we have heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and the learned advocate of the O.P. also orally argued the case on last date.
- In this case the material disputed issue as whether the O.P took inordinate delay to replace the engine and to repair the vehicle.
- It is admitted fact in view of the evidence on record that the vehicle received by the O.P on 25-01-2012 for repairing and delivered it on 03-05-2012 after replacing the engine. Thus, 99 days kept the vehicle to the workshop for the purpose of repairing. To justify the period the O.Ps stated in the W/S that on checking the tech-experts detected major problem to the vehicle and accordingly obtained opinion of tech-experts of Guwahati and then as per opinion of tech-experts of Guwahati replaced the engine. In the W/S also stated that time to time reported the update of work etc. to the complainant. The said pleas also adduced by the D.W but did not submit any documentary proof to support those pleas. It is also not clear how many days required to obtain opine of the tech-experts of Guwahati for replacing the engine and how many days spend from the date of submission requisition for new engine and when new engine received by the O.P and when replaced it.
- As the O.Ps did not establish the above vital facts, so in our considered view the O.P have taken inordinate delay to replace the engine and delivered the vehicle accordingly after 99 days from the date of receiving the vehicle. As the inordinate delay herein above is remain unexplained due to non-available of relevant and reliable evidence on the part of the O.P. So, it is concluded that the O.P were in negligent to repair and replace engine of the vehicle in time
- As such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The complainant in the complaint prayed for compensation of Rs.2,52,800/- but we are not at all convinced about the argument made by the complainant. The calculation of monetary loss made by the complainant without basis of any dates. Hence, in this situation by applying my prudent mind, a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- is treated a justified amount of compensation for monetary loss and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Therefore the O.Ps are directed to pay total compensation of Rs.15,000+10,000/-= Rs.25,000/-as compensation along with cost of the proceeding of Rs.2,000/-. The said awarded amount of Rs.25,000+2,000 =27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven thousand only) to be paid within 45 days from today. In default interest @ 10% per annum on that awarded amount to be charged with effect from the date of defaulter till realization of full.
- With the above, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of Judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on the 30th day of December, 2017.
