BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kamal Khetarpal s/o Late Sh.Roshan Lal Khetarpal, R/o H.No.266, Sector 20-A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Through Managing Director, Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.42, Indl. Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Complainant in person.

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the OP

PER SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

               Succinctly put, the complainant got his Tata Indica Car bearing Regn.No.CH-04-K-3053 repaired, after an accident by handing over the same to OP on 28.8.2009 and receiving back the car from OP on 22.9.2009 under cashless insurance policy of Oriental Insurance Company. The complainant on driving the said car, noticed that the OP had not done the repair work properly, as a result it was giving many troubles.  The air was entering inside the car while all window-panes were fully closed.  The window-panes gave noise while the car runs above 60 KMPH speed.  It is stated that the quality of repair was very poor as the pillars on which the front windscreen rest were showing 2-3 mm gap at the welding joints, which were filled later on.  There is 35-40 mm gap between the front windscreen and dashboard. 

                Complainant took his repaired car to OP about 5 times and requested them to repair it properly but they kept on dilly-dallying the matter and ultimately refused to do so.  The quality of repair was so poor that front windscreen of the car has got cracked in a few days after repairs as the same was not properly fixed, there being a gap between the windscreen and the dashboard.  It is averred that the OP inspite of charging Rs.77,443/- from the Insurance Company as well as from complainant, failed to carry out the repair the upto mark, due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot.  Hence, this complaint praying for a refund of Rs.77,443/-, Rs.50,000/- as harassment charges, Rs.55,000/- as the repair, costs  from some other agency all totaling Rs.1,82,443/-. 

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the accidental repairs of the car.  It is submitted that the vehicle was repaired perfectly to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  It is denied that the repair done by the OP was poor and not upto mark. It is also submitted that allegations leveled by the complainant with regard to poor repair work were vague.  It is stated that the OP is ready to get the vehicle inspected  regarding the repairs done from any independent automobile engineering institute or agency of repute in order to reveal the truth of the allegations made by complainant. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             We have heard the complainant in person and ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 

5]             The basic facts of the case in respect of the complainant having got his Tata Indica Car bearing Regd. No.CH-04-K-3053 repaired after an accident by handing over the same to the OP on 28.8.2009 and received back the same after repairs from OP on 22.9.2009 and that the Car in question was having a cashless insurance policy of Oriental Insurance Company, have all been admitted. 

6]             The allegation of the complainant against the OP is that although the OP had charged a sum of Rs.77,443/- together from him and insurance company but the repair work was not done properly as it was poorly done and it was not up to mark.  The complainant says that the air was entering inside the car through the windows even when all window panes were fully closed.  In addition, the window panes gave noise while car ran at about 60 k.m.p.h. speed.  The quality of repair was so poor and unsatisfactory that the pillars on which the front windscreen rested were showing 2-3 mm. Gap at the welding joints.  These gaps were filled by the OP later with some material on but still there was a gap between the front windscreen and the dashboard.  The complainant further says that he took the car about 5 times to the OP requesting them to repair the same properly, but they did not do the needful and finally refused to do any more repair to the car.

7]             The OP in its reply while admitting the carrying out of the accidental repairs of the car, has stated that the vehicle in question was repaired perfectly to the entire satisfaction of the complainant whenever it was brought to them.  It has specifically denied that the repair done by it was poor or not up to the mark.  The OP has further asserted that it was ready to get the vehicle inspected from any independent Automobile Engineering institute or any Automobiles Workshop of repute or any other independent Automobile Expert in order to get the real truth and for investigation and examination of the allegations made by the complainant.  In the end, the OP has denied all the allegations and asked for the dismissal of the complaint.  

8]             A close study of the entire case shows that the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.11,100/- to the OP for carrying out the various replacements and repairs of his already accidental car and the remaining money has been paid by the Insurance Company to the OP.  As per the complainant, the total amount chargeable should have been Rs.9059.39 whereas the OP had asked him to pay Rs.12,446/- against which he actually paid only Rs.11,100/-. 

9]             We have gone through the Surveyor’s Report carefully and did not find any figure of Rs.9059.39 anywhere in the report.  Also, how the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.11,100/- is not very clear from the papers on the file.  The main contention of the complainant has been that the OP has wrongfully charged Rs.77,443/- jointly from him and the insurance company, which they don’t deserve as the repair work has been faulty.  The complainant has not attached any cogent proof or expert report to prove his charge against the OP.  Since, the car in question had gone for repairs to the OP after it had met with an accident, there is no question of existence of any manufacturing defect in the car as well.  There is neither any allegation nor any proof of any manufacturing defect in the car.  The only allegation against OP is that the repair done by the OP has been faulty, sub-standard, poor and not up to the mark. To prove and substantiate these allegations against the OP, the complainant was required to produce an expert report either from an independent automobile engineering institution or an agency of repute dealing with Automobiles or an independent Automobile Expert.  None of these documents is on record.  Merely making an allegation through a complaint or filing an affidavit against the OP does not mean that the allegations in question stand proved or substantiated in any manner. 

10]            During the course of arguments, the complainant said that he also got the car repaired from some other agency (KALSI CAR CLINIC) for which he spent another sum of Rs.20,354/- but that is only a subsequent event and not a part of the complaint.  Therefore, any such action taken by the complainant after the filing of the complaint cannot be taken into account for dealing with the present complaint.

11]            Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion, there is no merit, weight or substance in the complaint as the complainant has miserably failed to prove any of the allegations against the OP.  On the  contrary, the OP has enclosed the entire service history of the car showing all the repairs and replacements done to the car before and after the accident which does not show any major or minor defect in the car. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on their part.  Therefore, the present complaint deserves rejection.  Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint.  However, the parties shall bear their own costs.         

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

16^th Aug., 2010                                                 Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                        Sd/- 

                                                (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

MADHU MUTNEJA

MEMBER

‘Om’