State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajla Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sri Laxmi Manjhi on 5 April, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/336/2012 (Arisen out of judgement dt. 15.5.12 of DCDRF, Siliguri, in Consumer Case No. 86/S/2011) DATE OF FILING : 22.06.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 05.04.2013 APPELLANTS 1. BAJLA MOTORS PVT. LTD. 2.1/2, Mile, (Near Don Bosco More) Sevoke Road, Siliguri. 2. BAJLA MOTORS PVT. LTD. 4th Mile, Salegara, Siliguri. RESPONDENT SRI LAXMI MANJHI S/o Ramcharan Manjhi R/o. Teesta Low Dam Project Tage-III, Reag, P.O. & P.S. Rambhi Bazaar Dist. Darjeeling Pin-734 321. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Souvik Chaterjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Debesh Halder, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 15.5.12 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri, in Consumer Case No. 86/S/2011 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the Consumer Case on contest in part against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 with a direction upon the Ops to provide a new battery, new front tyres and new roof ceiling for the complainants car along with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation.
The Complainant/Respondents case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant purchased a Tata Nano motor car from the Ops after hypothecating the same with Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Siliguri Branch. According to the complainant, the Ops took some amount from the complainant by way of annual maintenance charges for one year with the assurance that the maintenance works will be conducted free of cost. It was the further case of the complainant that as some problems developed, the vehicle was delivered to the Ops for necessary repair, servicing and denting. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the complainant that the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle does not tally with the model the complainant had purchased. At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle after necessary denting and painting the complainant had to pay Rs. 7,600/- towards those charges and that initially the complainant was assured that insurance coverage was there for the said denting and painting of the car, but ultimately the complainant was never paid anything in respect of the said works done to his vehicle. According to the complainant, in spite of requests and demands the Ops did not pay to the complainant the amount so charged towards the maintenance and other works in respect of the vehicle, which, according to the complainant, tantamounted to deficiency in service and hence, the petition of complaint for proper redressal.
The Ops contested the case by filing a written version thereby denying and disputing all the material averments mentioned in the petition of complaint contenting inter alia that denting and painting do not come under the purview of the maintenance works. The complainant was fully aware of this aspect of the case and after being satisfied with the painting and denting works conducted at the instance of the Ops took delivery of the same and for reasons best known to the complainant has come forward with a false and fictitious claim by filing the consumer complaint and considering all these aspects the consumer complaint was not maintainable, which was also defective for want of jurisdiction and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the case was very much within the territorial jurisdiction of the Consumer Court and that the Ops were deficient in service in charging the complainant in respect of the works done to the vehicle in question, which was well within the maintenance coverage scheme and that the complainant having been successful in substantiating his claim as regards deficiency in service at the instance of the Ops the petition of complaint was disposed of by the Ld. District Forum in part in the manner as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent that the Ld. District Forum has really appreciated the cases of respective party and has arrived at a just and proper decision, which is very much sustainable under the law.
According to the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent, when it is an admitted position that during the maintenance coverage period the vehicle was put in the custody of the Ops for rending some maintenance works, it was not just and proper on the part of the Ops to take charges for the same and the Ld. District Forum having rightly adjudged the Ops to be deficient in service in this regard has passed a very well reasoned judgement, which should be confirmed.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Respondent and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant/Respondent has come forward with a case to the effect that in spite of having maintenance coverage in respect of the vehicle so purchased by the complainant for one year and as during the subsistence of that maintenance coverage the vehicle of the complainant required some denting, painting and maintenance works, the same was placed under the custody of the Ops. But for reasons best known to the Ops, they charged Rs. 7,600/- to the complainant, which was improper and unjust and hence, the petition of complaint. The Appellants/Ops, on the other hand, has come forward with a case to the effect that the case was bad for want of proper territorial jurisdiction and that the maintenance coverage was in respect of maintenance works only and the works so far as it relates to denting and painting do not come under the maintenance coverage. The complainant was not entitled to any insurance coverage in respect of those works and the Ops have rightly charged the complainant for the cost of denting and painting and the complainant having been satisfied with the work has taken delivery of the vehicle in question and did not raise any objection whatsoever at that time and the petition of complaint having been filed subsequently with some false and fictitious allegations the same was liable to be dismissed with cost.
We have carefully gone through the materials on record and find that it is an admitted position that the vehicle was placed with the Ops for effecting some works in respect of denting and painting of the vehicle in question, which, in our opinion, cannot be taken as maintenance works at all. Besides that, from Annexure-D it has become quite evident that at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle in question from the Ops after denting and painting works the complainant received the same in good condition and to the satisfaction of the complainant. If that be the position, we do not think that it was just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to uphold the case of the complainant thereby holding the Appellants/Ops to be deficient in service. In this regard, we also hold that the complainant was not entitled to any insurance coverage for the works done by the Ops in respect of the vehicle in question. Having considered the present Appeal in the light of above discussions we find merit in the present Appeal, which, in our opinion, should be allowed. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands set aside. Consequently, the petition of complaint filed by the complainant before the Ld. District Forum stands dismissed.
MEMBER PRESIDENT