State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Bhagat Ford vs Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon on 16 May, 2016
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 83 of 2016 Date of Institution : 18.03.2016 Date of Decision : 16.05.2016 M/s Bhagat Ford, 53, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. ......Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, House No.2059, Sector 15/C, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Gurdarshan Singh Dhillon, respondent in person.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.01.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted consumer complaint bearing no.441 of 2015, filed by the complainant (now respondent). Finding deficiency in providing service, by the Opposite Party/appellant, the respondent was granted following relief:-
"[a] To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;
[b] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/-
The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses."
It was case of the respondent that he took his two vehicles i.e. Ford Ikon CH03A-5625 and Ford Eco Sport CH01AX-8884, to the workshop of the appellant, on 7.8.2015, at 10.15 am, alongwith his driver, for servicing. He was directed to wait in the waiting room, with the promise that service of his vehicles would be done on time. At about 12.45 O'clock, it was noticed by the respondent that what to talk of servicing, his both vehicles were not even touched by any competent worker of the appellant. He was told that his one vehicle i.e. Ford Ikon car would be delivered by 4.00 pm., after servicing and Eco Sport car would be delivered next day. It was also stated by the respondent that some vehicles, which were brought to the workshop, after him, were serviced and delivered back to the customers concerned.
Upon notice, reply was filed by the appellant. It was stated by the appellant that, job card of Eco Sport car was prepared at 11.00 AM and of the second car at 11.20 AM and it was indicated that both the vehicles, after service, will be delivered at about 4.00 PM and 5.00 PM respectively, but the respondent, instead of waiting for his turn, took away his vehicles from the workshop of the appellant.
The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
After hearing the respondent in person, Counsel for the appellant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order, by observing as under:-
"8] We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and find it necessary to mention here that even though the repair orders of the vehicles in question were prepared by the Opposite Party as Ann.OP-2 & 3, the promised Date & Time of the delivery of the vehicles was mentioned as 13.00 Hours and 17.00 Hours respectively for Eco Sport and Ford Ikon vehicles respectively. These vehicles were taken in for service at 11.00 AM and 11.20 AM. While comparing the same with Ann.OP-1, which is the detail of all the vehicles, which were taken in for service on the given date, when the complainant too was invited for the service of his vehicles, and it is noticed that the complainant's vehicle were taken-in at 10.02 hours and 10.20 hours respectively, whereas the same is found mentioned to be as 11.00 hours & 11.20 hours in their Job Cards (Ann.OP-2 & 3). There were as many as 18 vehicles, which reached the premises of the Opposite Party for service work alone, apart from other vehicles, which required mechanical work, body work etc. The complainant's first vehicle found mentioned at Sr.No.9 was the 7th vehicle in line for service and the vehicle mentioned at Sr.No.10 bearing No.CH-01-BC-9903, which was reported for service at 10.03 hours i.e. just one minute after the first vehicle of the complainant was taken, is found to be serviced and released after service at 13.13 hours (1.13 P.M.). This aspect clearly indicates that the Opposite Party preferred not to honour the basic principle of first-cum-first served as the complainant's vehicle bearing No.CH-01-AX-8884 remained unattended, whereas the vehicle which reported immediately after it, was even ready at 1.13 P.M. when the complainant was requesting the Opposite Party to at least initiate some work, so that his entire day is not wasted.
9] The Opposite Party have not placed on record the Job Cards of the different vehicles which have come for service for us to believe that the Opposite Party were sincere enough to quote the tentative delivery date & time and the same could be co-related from the departure of such vehicles after service from Ann.OP-1. In the absence of complete evidence from the side of the Opposite Party, we are compelled to believe that the Opposite Party preferred to temper with the priority of its customers, for the reasons best known to it alone and the unsuspecting clients like the complainant are left to fend for themselves and wait indefinitely in the waiting area of the workshop and kill their time while the Opposite Party serviced the vehicle in pick & choose manner. Such a practice of the Opposite Party amounts to an unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on its part towards its customers."
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/opposite party.
We have heard Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
We feel that the order passed by the Forum is perfectly justified and no case is made out for interference in it. It is proved on record that both the vehicles of the respondent reached workshop of the appellant for servicing between 10.00 A.M. to 10.20 A.M. However, job cards were prepared between 11.00 A.M. to 11.20 A.M. As such, there was delay in initiation of the process of servicing. It was further rightly noticed by the Forum that one vehicle bearing no.CH01BC-9903, which was brought for service at 10.03 hours i.e. just about a minute after the first vehicle of the respondent, after service, was delivered at about 01.13 p.m. It was further rightly noticed that the appellant has failed to prove one record that the vehicles of the customers were serviced, as per first-cum-first serve policy. The respondent was unnecessarily made to wait in the waiting room, for about more than two hours, and by that time, his vehicles were not even touched by any worker of the appellant. Thus, we feel that there was a clear-cut deficiency in providing service to the respondent, on the part of the appellant. The order passed by the Forum is perfectly justified.
However, it appears that the amount of compensation granted by the Forum, is on the higher side and as such, the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.15,000/-. The order qua litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7,000/- is maintained.
The amount of Rs.17,000/- (Rs.10,000/- plus (+) Rs.7,000/- aforesaid) shall be paid by the appellant, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry simple interest @12% p.a., from the date of default, till realization.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is dismissed with the slight modification of the order impugned, in the terms referred to above, with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
16.05.2016 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg