State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd vs Sh. Kehar Singh Saini on 19 June, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. 228 of 2014 Date of Institution 16.06.2014 Date of Decision 19.06.2014 M/s Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer, 112-113, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Director. ..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1. Versus Sh. Kehar Singh Saini S/o Sh. Sadhu Singh Saini, R/o H.No.230, Badal Colony, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Ajitgarh, Mohali. ...Respondent/Complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate Proxy for Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for the appellant.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant qua Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) and directed it as under:-
11. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed:-
i) To refund an amount of Rs.500/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 6.7.2013 till realization.
ii) To make payment of a composite amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards compensation for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service and litigation expenses.
The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
12. This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amounts mentioned at S.No.(i) & (ii) of the para aforesaid shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the the complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing registration No.PB-70C-1535, which was purchased in June, 2011. It was stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 6.7.2013, with a problem in a right hand side front wheel, the stud whereof got free, when the nut was about to open. It was further stated that the said car was checked by the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1, who informed the complainant that it (car) was to be taken to Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1, asked the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2, to open the right front wheel to undo (rectify) the problem. It was further stated that, thereafter, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2, opened the wheel to undo the problem and, in the process of repair, he damaged the hub bearing also, which was replaced by him. It was further stated that the bill (Annexure C-6) of Rs.500/-
was raised, which was paid by the complainant. It was further stated that on returning to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, a bill slip of Rs.1639/-, Annexure C-7, was also supplied to the complainant, which he duly paid. It was further stated that the complainant was not satisfied with the services rendered by Opposite Party No.1, for the reasons, firstly the said problem was not undone by the authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1, as the same was done by Opposite Party No.2, secondly the parts were changed by Opposite Party No.2, and thirdly the complainant was charged twice, fourthly Opposite Party No.1 committed breach of trust of the complainant in order to provide professional services. It was further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2013, Annexure C-8, to the Opposite Parties, but they never replied to the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to Opposite Party No.1, to refund the cost, which was paid by him alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of payment; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; Rs.20,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony; and Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.
3. Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, stated that the complaint was misconceived and baseless allegations of defects i.e. restarting problem in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence were made in the complaint. It was further stated that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute a consumer dispute under the Act as neither any manufacturing defect was proved in the vehicle, in question, nor any deficiency in service, was established against OP No.1. It was further stated that the complainant failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operators service book as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle. It was further stated that the relationship existing between the Opposite Parties was on principal to principal basis, and Opposite Party No.1, could not be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by Opposite Party No.2, if any. It was further stated that on 6.7.2013, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, with the studs problem of right front wheel and the jobs mentioned in Annexure C-7, were carried out, for consideration and he paid the amount without any protest. It was further stated that after inspection of the vehicle by the employees of Opposite Party No.1, it was found that all four studs of right front wheel were free. It was further stated that under these circumstances, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1 opened hub with knucle assembly and dismantled tyre and sent opened hub etc. to Opposite Party No.2 for the lathe job. It was further stated that with the help of press etc., Opposite Party No.2 was to cut loose studs and do bearing fitment jobs. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 carried out the required job under the instructions of the complainant, and he was under an obligation to pay the contractual amount. It was further stated that after completion of the above said job, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, for fitment. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 rendered services on charges, and it had charged the amount. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant had paid the alleged amount to Opposite Party No.2, then Opposite Party No.1 could not be held responsible for the same. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied being wrong.
4. Opposite Party No.2, in its written statement, stated that it is self employed small shop keeper and had been falsely impleaded by the complainant, in order to settle his scores with Opposite Party No.1. It was admitted that on 6.7.2013, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 with the studs problem of right front wheel. It was further stated that Annexure C-6 was pertaining to Opposite Party No.2, and the jobs mentioned in the same were carried out. It was further stated that the vehicle of the complainant was brought with the problem of all four studs of right front wheel free. It was further stated that the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1 opened hub with knucle assembly and dismantled tyre hub etc. were brought to the shop of Opposite Party No.2 for the lathe job. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 cut loose studs and completed bearing fitment jobs. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 rendered satisfactory services to the complainant and it did not receive any legal notice from the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied being wrong.
5. The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
6. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.1, and dismissed the same against Opposite Party No.2, as stated in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, submitted that the District Forum grossly erred in appreciating the pleadings while passing the impugned order. It was further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party had recommended for replacement of the wheel and never recommended repair of the parts as per policy of the manufacturer. It was further submitted that the District Forum also failed to appreciate the fact that some outside job/lathe work etc. was performed over the vehicle, for which, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 could not be held responsible. It was further submitted that Annexures C-6 and C-7 were having different jobs/parts pertaining to the front wheel, bolt and bearing and the District Forum wrongly held that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 was to get the car repaired from its mechanics, whereas the complainant was not interested for the said repairs. It was further submitted that the respondent/complainant failed to examine any reliable witness to prove that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 charged excess amount. It was further submitted that mere bald statement of the respondent/complainant, was not sufficient to prove that the vehicle was suffering from any of the alleged manufacturing defects. It was further submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 was not deficient, in rendering services, and the findings of the District Forum below, were based on conjectures and surmises. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being improper and invalid, be set aside.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Before filing the complaint, the respondent/complainant had sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure C-8) to the Opposite Parties. As per photocopy of the of postal receipts, appended on the copy of the legal notice, the same was sent to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, as well as Opposite Party No.2, through registered post. A specific mention to this effect was made by the respondent/complainant, in Para 7 of his complaint. The Opposite Parties did not respond to the legal notice, served upon them by the respondent/complainant. No doubt, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, in Para 7 of its written statement, denied the receipt of legal notice (Annexure C-8). The same having been sent by registered post, the submission of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 cannot be accepted. The fact that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 did not respond to the legal notice amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. The respondent/complainant, has not levelled any allegation of manufacturing defect, in the vehicle, and, therefore, the submission of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 to this effect is not relevant.
12. The respondent/complainant averred in Paras 3, 4 and 5 of his complaint, that when he approached the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 on 6.7.2013 with a problem in the right hand side front wheel of his car, he was asked to take the car to Opposite Party No.2, and one mechanic of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 accompanied him. It was further submitted that Opposite Party No.2, got rectified the problem and raised a bill of Rs.500/- (Annexure C-6), payment of which was made by the respondent/complainant. As rightly held by the District Forum, these averments of the respondent/complainant, were neither denied by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, specifically nor any affidavit of mechanic of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 to prove that the complainant was not informed that the car was to be taken to Opposite Party No.2 and he did not ask the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2 to open the right front wheel to rectify the problem, was filed. Despite the fact that the respondent/complainant, made payment of Rs.500/- to Opposite Party No.2, still the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 charged a sum of Rs.1,639/- from the respondent/complainant, which included a sum of Rs.40.88 for nut wheel, Rs.67.56 for bold and Rs.848.89 for bearing front wheel plus Rs.119.67 as VAT @12.5%, and Rs.500/- on account of labour charges for front wheel bearing (one side) R&R, as per Annexure C-7. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that when the respondent/complainant took his car for repairs to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, authorised service station of Maruti Suzuki, the car ought to have been repaired at the workshop of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, and if the car was to be taken to the workshop of Opposite Party No.2, for lathe job and bearing fitment jobs, then the mechanic of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, was required to get it done from Opposite Party No.2, and the payment, if any, ought to have been made by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, to Opposite Party No.2, and then it could charge the amount of repairs in the bill issued by it. Clearly when the vehicle, in question, was taken to Opposite Party No.2, at the suggestion of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, it (appellant/Opposite Party No.1) cannot wriggle out of its aforesaid liability, by shifting the onus on to Opposite Party No.2 that a sum of Rs.500/- was charged by Opposite Party No.2. As such, the respondent/complainant, was entitled to get back the amount of Rs.500/- paid by him to Opposite Party No.2. It was immaterial if at the time of making payment of Rs.1,639/- to the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, the respondent/ complainant did not raise any written objection. The respondent/complainant duly informed the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, as well as Opposite Party No.2, of his grievance through legal notice dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure C-8). It is, thus, clear from the contents of Exhibits C-6 and C-7, which are copies of bill dated 6.7.2013 and cash memo (customer copy) dated 6.7.2013, that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 as well as Opposite Party No.2 charged the respondent/complainant on account of front wheel bearing and front wheel bearing labour charges. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1, was thus, deficient, in rendering service, and by charging the respondent/complainant again, for which, complaint made payment of Rs.500/- to Opposite Party No.2, it (appellant/Opposite Party No.1) had indulged into unfair trade practice.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.1.
14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
June 19, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Ad