State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Metro Motors vs Ashirwad Sharma on 7 November, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No : 1288 of 2016 Date of Institution: 28.12.2016 Date of Decision : 07.11.2017 1. M/s Metro Motors, Teji Gate, Near LIC Office, Jagadhari 2. M/s Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. Both through its Managing Partner Mr. Y.P. Das. Appellants-Opposite Parties Versus Aashirwad Sharma son of Sh. P.D. Sharma, resident of House No.959/D-2/1239, Model Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent-Complainant CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.
Argued by: Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate for appellants Shri Vibhor Bansal, Advocate for the respondent O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
Metro Motors Private Limited and its functionary-opposite parties (for short 'Metro Motors') are in appeal against the order dated December 08th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short 'District Forum'), whereby it directed the Metro Motors-opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1,06,966/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, August 29th, 2011 till its actual realization on account of the payment made by Aashirwad Sharma-complainant to Metro Motors for the repair of his car- HR02W-0942.
2. On March 30th, 2010 the complainant purchased the vehicle from Metro Motors, Jagadhari-opposite party No.1. After a few days of its purchase, the complainant noticed some defects in the vehicle. The complainant spent Rs.1,06,966/- on the repair of the vehicle. He submitted claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that engine sump was damaged due to external hitting. Turbo charger and engine were found defective. The complainant asked the Metro Motors to dismantle the turbo and engine to know the extent of damage and on dismantling the same, it was observed that turbo charger was faulty alongwith damage to the engine. The car was repaired. The complainant paid Rs.1,06,966/- to the Metro Motors. By filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, the complainant sought refund of Rs.1,06,966/-.
3. Vide E-mail dated March 25th, 2011 (Photocopy Annexure-II) scanned copies of the estimate to repair the vehicle were sent to the complainant and it was also written to him that job was pending for his approval. The complainant also sent E-mail to Metro Motors on March 28th, 2011, in which he stated that "how are you I just see the estimate so plz make it for further necessary action". After getting the consent to repair the vehicle, the vehicle was repaired and complainant paid the amount of the bill of Rs.1,06,966.02 (Photocopy Annexure-III) without any objection at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle. In this view of the matter, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Metro Motors. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint. According, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
4. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced 07.11.2017 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK