FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
The instant petition of complaint is filed by the complainant Sourav Ghosh U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant purchased one motor cycle namely TVS RTR 160 FS on 07.02.2019 from the OP-3 against consideration. The complainant availed the second free servicing on 16.05.2019 from the OP-2 in terms of the warrantee. After the said second service the complainant found some problems in the aforementioned motor cycle/bike in question and reported the matter to the OP-2. As a result the OP-2 took charge of the said vehicle and asked the complainant to keep the same for 3/4 days in the servicing centre of the OP-2. After 3 days as reported by the OP, the complainant went to receive the vehicle as it was ready but at the time of receiving the same the OP told him that the vehicle was not ready. The complainant on inspection of the said vehicle realized that the original parts of the vehicle has been replaced then he reported the OP and demanded the CC TV footage of such repairing work but the OP refused to hand over the same.
The OP-1 is the manufacturer of the motor cycle / bike in question bearing Engine No. AE7AK2XM8622 and Chassis No. MB637AE73K2AM8437. The complainant further stated that he reported the matter to the OP but they did not pay any heed to his request to supply the CC TV footage of the repairing work. It is further alleged by the complainant that he served a lawyer notice upon the OP-3 as the OP-3 has charged an excess amount of Rs.8,639/- from the complainant at the time of purchasing the said vehicle. The complainant stated in his petition that cause of action arose when he brought his vehicle for servicing to the OP-2 and also on 15.07.2019 and 21.07.2019 when legal notice was issued upon the OP members. But the OP members did not give any response to that effect.
It is further stated by the complainant that initially he filed the case against OP-3 Joy Motors but subsequently the name of the OP-3 has been expunged or terminated from the cause title of the petition of complaint vide order No. 4 dated 07.01.2020.
Hence, the instant application is filed by the complainant to give direction to the OP-1 and 2 for providing the CC TV footage of repairing work of the vehicle in question to the complainant and also give direction to them to replace the vehicle with a new one and to refund of Rs.8,639/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of payment till realization. He further prayed for giving direction to the OP-1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony.
The OP-1 and 2 have contested the case by filing WV denying all the material allegation leveled against them in the petition of complaint. It is the case of the OP members that the petition of complaint is baseless and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. It is also the case of the OP-1 that there is/was no allegation against the OP-1 in the petition of complaint made by the complainant so the name of the OP-1 should be expunged from the cause title of the petition of complaint.
It is further stated that the motor cycle in question has brought by the complainant to the serving centre of the OP-2 for second free servicing on 08.05.2019. The complainant was duly attended the repairing work and the men and agent of the OP-2 took care of the complainant’s concern including chain noise and the servicing was completed in due course. The complainant took the delivery of the motor cycle in question from the OP-2 being satisfied about the repairing work. All the problems as addressed by the complainant were satisfactorily attended by the OP-2 thereafter on 25.05.2019 he took the delivery of the motor cycle in question after signing a receipt mentioning that the vehicle was in good condition at the time of delivery. After lapse of three week the OP-2 received a letter from the complainant interalia with wrong allegation that the original parts of the motor cycle has been stolen and he sought for CC Tv footage of the repairing work and on the basis on said false allegation the complainant demanded that his motor cycle in question be replaced by a new one but the complainant did not stated specifically in his letter actually which original parts allegedly changed. It is the case of the contesting OP members that there is /was no negligence and deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, the case is baseless and not maintainable at all before this Forum because this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and also because there is / was no cause of action to file the case thus the case is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, it has to be decided by this Forum:
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP members?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All the points are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On a close scrutiny of the materials of the record, it is revealed that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law in respect of all sorts of jurisdiction and limitation.
Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP-3 on full consideration. Subsequently he went for free servicing to the OP-2 on 08.05.2019, OP-1 is the manufacturer. OP-2 is the servicing centre of the OP-1. After free servicing of the vehicle in question the complainant received the vehicle from the OP-2 on 02.05.2019 on full satisfaction, but subsequently he made allegation that the OP members illegally received an excess amount of Rs.8,639/- from the complainant to that effect without any explanation. He admitted that the said amount of Rs.8,639/- was collected by the OP-3 at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Subsequently he alleged that the original parts of the vehicle in question has been replaced by OP-2 by old parts and he demanded the CC Tv footage of the repairing work of the vehicle in question so that it can be revealed from the same whether the OP-2 changed the original parts of the vehicle in question or not at the time of repairing work.
During the course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant has agitated before this Commission that if the original parts have not been replaced by old parts then what prevented the OP-2 to give the CC Tv footage of the repairing work? Ld. Advocate for the OP-1 and 2 has argued that without having any supportive document or without getting any expert report of the specialist mechanic how the complainant can raised the allegation that the original parts of the vehicle in question has been changed by old parts done by the OP2 during repairing work of the vehicle in question?
This Commission also of same view with the Ld. Advocate for the OP-2 that without any supportive documents in respect of the alleged change or replacement of the original parts by the OP-2 what prompted the complainant to raise finger to the OP-2. It is mere apprehension of mind of the complainant. It is the settled principle of law that in any case mere apprehension of mind of any person without having any strong basis cannot indulge any court of law to move against any person or body. In the instant case also we found that without raise the mere allegation in respect of alleged replacement of original parts of the subject vehicle and charge of excess amount of Rs.8639/- the complainant failed to place any document in support of his claim and allegation before this Commission. Moreover, neither of the parties have placed this case before this Commission during the course of argument whether the OP-2 Service Centre was under the surveillance of CC Tv and from the materials as well as evidence on record it is crystal clear that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.8,639/- on full satisfaction and received the voucher without raising any question at the time of purchasing the subject vehicle. But subsequently in one fine morning he claimed that the amount of Rs.8,639/- paid by him to the OP-3 whose name has been expunged or terminated from the cause title of the petition of complainant as per prayer of the complainant himself was excess amount.
Under such circumstances this commission is opined that the complainant is absolutely failure to bring home his allegation that the original parts of the subject vehicle has been replaced / changed by the OP-2 during the repairing work and he is also out and out failure to prove that there was any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1 and 2 thus it can safely be held by this Commission that the complainant is failed to prove his case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. Thus, he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
In a nutshell the complainant could not be able to prove his case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt and also not entitle to get the relief as prayed for.
The case is properly stamped.
All the points are thus decided accordingly.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any costs.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost.