State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Roop Lal Sankhyan. on 5 October, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
(A) First Appeal No. : 45/2017
Date of Presentation: 15.11.2016
Order Reserved On : 19.06.2017
Date of Order : 05.10.2017
......
Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. NH-21 Luna Pani Post Office
Bhangrottu Tehsil Balh District Mandi H.P. Through its M.D.
...... Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Sh. Roop Lal Sankhyan H. No. S-IV BBMB Colony
Sunder Nagar Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P.
......Respondent /Complainant
For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Vandana Thakur Advocate vice
Mr. Surinder Saklani Advocate.
(B) First Appeal No. : 101/2017
Date of Presentation: 27.12.2016
Order Reserved On : 19.06.2017
Date of Order : 05.10.2017
......
Sh. Roop Lal Sankhyan H. No. S-IV/109 BBMB Colony
Sunder Nagar Tehsil Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P.
At Present r/o Village and Post Office Dhar-Tatoh
Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur Himachal Pradesh
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. NH-21 Luna Pani Post Office
Bhangrottu Tehsil Balh District Mandi H.P. Through its M.D.
......Respondent / Opposite party
For Appellant : Ms. Vandana Thakur Advocate vice
Mr. Surinder Saklani Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Advocate.
Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017)
&
Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017)
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Both appeals i.e. F.A. No.45/2017 and F.A. No. 101/2017 filed against the same order passed by learned District Forum. Both appeals consolidated and disposed of vide same order in order to avoid conflicting orders. Both appeals filed against order dated 10.05.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.422/2014 title Sh. Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Roop Lal Sankhyan filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant on dated 17.09.2013 got services of opposite party for carrying out repair of his Indigo Tata Car having registration No. HP-31A-1769. It is pleaded that engine overhauling of car was carried out by opposite party and consideration amount 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) of Rs.40500/- (Forty thousand five hundred) was paid to opposite party. It is further pleaded that speedometer of car started giving problem and thereafter complainant visited workshop of opposite party on dated 27.10.2014. It is further pleaded that opposite party kept vehicle upto 14.11.2014 and did not remove the defect. It is further pleaded that opposite party charged Rs.21300/- (Twenty one thousand three hundred) for the repair job carried out w.e.f. 27.10.2014 to 14.11.2014. It is further pleaded that complainant told opposite party that after previous repair fault occurred in the vehicle and opposite party was under legal obligation to repair subsequent defect free of costs. It is further pleaded that opposite party told complainant that repair would not be carried out free of costs because engine overhauling period of one year already stood expired. Complainant sought relief of refund of Rs.61800/- (Sixty one thousand eight hundred). Complainant also sought additional relief of payment of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) towards mental agony and complainant also sought additional relief of Rs.1000/- as litigation costs.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable and complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file present complaint. It is pleaded that complainant concealed 3 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) material facts from the Court. It is further pleaded that complainant was advised to overhaul pump as injector of pump was not working properly. It is further pleaded that complainant did not give his consent to overhaul pump. It is further pleaded that complainant was informed that overhauling of fuel pump was necessary for proper functioning of system of vehicle. It is further pleaded that complainant has himself restrained the workers of opposite party to carry out complete repairs. It is further pleaded that complainant has no cause of action to file present complaint. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to refund amount of Rs.18632/- (Eighteen thousand six hundred thirty two) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay special damages to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) to complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to complainant. In addition learned District Forum further 4 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand).
6. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned District Forum opposite party and complainant filed present appeals before State Commission.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeals.
1. Whether appeal No.45/2017 title Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Whether appeal No.101/2017 title Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd.
is liable to be accepted as mentioned in
memorandum of grounds of appeal.
3. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons relating to appeal No. 45 of 2017:
9. Complainant filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent hired services of opposite party on dated 17.09.2013 for repairing his car having No. HP-31A-1769 Tata Indigo. There is further recital in the 5 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) affidavit that engine of vehicle was overhauled and consideration amount of Rs.40500/- (Forty thousand five hundred) was paid by complainant to opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that within one year of repair vehiclestarted giving problem and deponent again hired services of opposite party after running car for 13280 Kms only. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party kept vehicle upto 14.11.2014 and did not remove the defect and told complainant that car engine required again overhauling. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party again charged Rs.21300/- (Twenty one thousand three hundred) from the complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant told opposite party that defect occurred in the vehicle again after running car to the extent of 13280 Kms. and opposite party should overhaul engine free of costs. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party refused to overhaul engine free of costs on the ground that defect occurred after expiry of one year. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant also sought opinion of Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Mechanical Workshop Division BBMB Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that expert had given opinion that Tata vehicles run approximately between 50000 to 100000 Kms. after overhauling of engine. 6
Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017)
10. Complainant also filed in evidence affidavit of Rai Singh Katwal Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Workshop Division BBMB Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is mechanical engineer and is having experience of 26 years. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had given opinion as per request of complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that Tata vehicles use to run 50000 to 100000 Kms after overhauling of engine.
11. Opposite party also filed in evidence affidavit of Sumer Sharma Area Manager. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is working as Area Manager of opposite party and is conversant with the facts of complaint. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party had carried out repairs of vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant was advised to overhaul pump as injector of pump was not working properly but complainant did not give his consent to overhaul pump. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant was informed that overhauling of fuel pump was necessary for proper functioning of engine of vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant himself restrained workers of opposite party to carry out complete repairs of vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party did not commit any 7 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) deficiency in service. There is further recital in the affidavit that after expiry of one year opposite party was not under legal obligation to repair vehicle free of costs.
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that complainant did not give consent for replacement of injector of pump during his first repair and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. Onus to prove that complainant did not give consent for replacement of injector of pump during first repair was upon opposite party. Opposite party did not file affidavit of mechanic who had conducted repair of vehicle personally. Opposite party filed affidavit of Sumer Sharma Area Manager who has filed affidavit on the basis of derived knowledge hence adverse inference is drawn against opposite party for non-examination of mechanic who had personally conducted repair of vehicle. Even opposite party did not place on record first repair job card. Opposite party has simply placed on record second repair job card and opposite party has concealed first repair job card from District Forum and State Commission. Hence adverse inference is also drawn against appellant for non- production of first repair job card.
13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle was plied in excess about 40 Kms. daily despite the fact that vehicle was plied about 8 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) 111647 Kms. earlier and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party was under legal obligation to remove all defects of vehicle. In the present case opposite party himself admitted that injector of pump was not working properly and overhauling of fuel pump was necessary. Opposite party did not place on record job card in order to prove that overhauling of fuel pump was necessary when earlier repair was conducted by opposite party. Plea of opposite party that overhauling of pump was necessary is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof).
14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum has awarded special damages to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Twenty five thousand) without prayer of complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused relief clause of complaint. In the relief clause of complaint complainant has specifically mentioned that any relief should be awarded to the complainant which District Forum deemed fit and proper. It is held that complainant has sought additional relief also which was appropriate as per learned District Forum. Learned District Forum has specifically held that complainant is also entitled for special damages. Reason mentioned by learned District Forum for 9 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) award of special damages is that defects in the vehicle of complainant occurred again after running the vehicle to the extent of 13280 Kms. only is justified. Even Rai Singh Katwal expert has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that Tata vehicles use to run approximately 50000 to 100000 after overhauling of engine. Affidavit filed by Rai Singh Katwal Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Workshop Division BBMB Sunder Nagar District Mandi is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by Rai Singh Katwal expert. There is also no evidence on record in order to prove that Rai Singh Katwal expert has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. Opposite party did not file any counter expert report. Expert report filed by complainant remained unrebutted on record. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Findings upon point No.2 with reasons relating to appeal No.101 of 2017:
15. Evidence is not repeated again in order to avoid repetition. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Roop Lal that order of learned District Forum be modified and liability of opposite party be enhanced is decided accordingly. District Forum has specifically mentioned in order that entire amount of earlier bill to the 10 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) tune of Rs.40500/- (Forty thousand five hundred) could not be refunded to the complainant because engine overhauling work was conducted by opposite party. Learned District Forum held that complainant could be compensated by awarding special damages. We are of the opinion that special damages awarded by learned District Forum to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- is reasonable in the ends of justice.
16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant Roop Lal that for the second time complainant was charged Rs.21300/- (Twenty one thousand three hundred) by opposite party vide invoice bill annexure C-I and entire amount be refunded to complainant is also decided accordingly. From the bare perusal of annexure C-1 it is clear that items shown at serial Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19 & 25 are not linked with engine. Hence charges for the aforesaid work should be excluded from total bill. Learned District Forum has refunded amount to the tune of Rs.18632/- (Eighteen thousand six hundred thirty two) with interest @9% per annum in a reasonable manner. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.2 is decided accordingly.
11 Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan (F.A. No.45/2017) & Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. (F.A. No.101/2017) Point No.3: Final Order
17. In view of findings upon points No.1 & 2 above both appeals i.e. F.A. No.45/2017 title Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Roop Lal Sankhyan and F.A. No.101/2017 title Roop Lal Sankhyan Versus Hi-Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. are dismissed. Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Affidavit of Rai Singh Katwal Senior Executive Engineer Electrical and Workshop Division BBMB Sunder Nagar District Mandi H.P. dated 18.07.2015 and invoice bill dated 14.11.2014 annexure C- I will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Certified copy of order be placed in the original file of appeal No. 101 of 2017 forthwith. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and files of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Both appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 05.10.2017.
*GUPTA* 12