Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member.
1. This appeal is filed by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 against the order dated 04/06/2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No.652/2008 of which the operative part is reproduced below.
- Complaint is partly allowed.
- The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay the complainant compensation @ Rs.2000/- per day for the period from 10/09/2007 to 22/12/2007 during which the vehicle given by the complainant to O.P.No.1 for repairing was not repaired by it.
- The O.P.No.2 and 3 are directed to pay the complainant compensation of Rs.30,000/- for not repairing the vehicle of the complainant on time.
- The O.P. No.4 is directed to pay the complainant compensation @ 2000/- per day for the period of 27 days during which the vehicle of the complainant was not repaired by O.P.No.4.
- The O.P.No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are directed to pay cost of Rs.4000/- to the complainant.
- The complaint against O.P.No.5 is dismissed.
- The O.P.No.1, 2, 3 and 4 shall comply with the order within 30 days from the receipt copy of that order.
2. None is present for the appellant to-day for final hearing, though appellant’s Advocate already filed written notes of arguments. None is present for the original complainant/respondent No.1 herein to-day, though the Advocate of the respondent No.1 also already filed written notes of arguments. None is present for respondent No.2 and 3. Advocate Mr.Shrikant Saoji is present for respondent No.4. Advocate Mr.C.B.Pande is present for respondent No.5. We have heard the aforesaid Advocates to-day. We have also considered the written notes of arguments filed by the aforesaid parties. We have also considered the other record of the appeal.
3. It is not disputed that the vehicle owned by the complainant was damaged in an accident and it was handed over to O.P.No.1/appellant on 09/09/2007 for repairee. However O.P.No.1 could not repair that vehicle as its dealership was cancelled by the manufacturer i.e. O.P.Nos.2 and 3. Therefore the vehicle was handed-over to authorized workshop of O.P.No.4 on 24/12/2007 for repairing and accordingly O.P.No.4 repaired that vehicle and on getting the sum assured under the policy from O.P.No.5, the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 07/05/2008.
4. The Forum after hearing both the parties, passed the aforesaid order holding that the O.P.No.1/appellant provided deficient service to the complainant by accepting damaged vehicle for repairing, though the dealership and authority for workshop was cancelled by the manufacturer and by not repairing it for the period from 10/09/2007 to 22/12/2007. Therefore the Forum awarded compensation as above against the O.P.No.1 which is challenged in this appeal.
5. The appellant’s Advocate in his written notes of arguments filed in appeal in brief submitted that the Forum did not consider that there is no relationship as consumer and service provider in between the complainant and the appellant and that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The other contentions raised in the written notes of arguments by the appellant’s Advocate are that the document at Sr.No.4 is service check list which produced before the Forum and complete document was not produced before the Forum, but only first page was produced and that document at Sr.No.8 produced before the Forum is sufficient to show that the appellant had informed the complainant for taking the car to the workship of O.P.No.1 for repairs. Thus the Forum has not considered that document. The complainant did not shift the vehicle to the workshop of O.P.No.4. Therefore appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. He therefore requested that the impugned order may be set aside has passed as against O.P.No.1.
6. It is seen that the ground raised about non maintainability of the complaint by filing written notes of argument in this appeal was not raised before the Forum by the appellant in the reply.
7. We find that as soon as the O.P.No.1/appellant accepted the vehicle for repairee for the consideration to be paid after repairing, the relationship of consumer and service provider came into existing between complainant and O.P.No.1/appellant. Moreover as it was the service to be provided, by the appellant for repairing of the vehicle, no question arises about commercial use of the vehicle by the complainant. We find that the grounds about non maintainability of the complaint raised in the appeal have got no merit and baseless and therefore the same can not be accepted.
8. It is seen from documents filed on record that the appellant filed only the copy of service check sheet which was filed before the Forum. It also proves that the appellant had accepted the vehicle for repairee on 09/09/2007. In our view when the dealership and authorization for workshop of the appellant was already cancelled by the manufacturer of the vehicle, the vehicle ought not to have been accepted by O.P. No.1 for repairee. The O.P.No.1/appellant can not raise any plea that as the manufacturer of the vehicle did not provide spare parts of that vehicle due to cancellation of dealership, it could not repair the vehicle within time. No document is produced by the appellant before this Commission to show that it had informed the complainant vide any letter immediately for taking back the vehicle. In our view the submission made in written notes of arguments filed in appeal, by the appellant are not supported by any documents. Therefore the said submission can not be accepted.
9. We therefore hold that the Forum has appreciated correctly and properly the evidence brought on record and reached to correct conclusion and findings. The impugned order is therefore just, legal and proper and needs no interference, so far as relief granted against the O.P.No.1/appellant is concerned. In the result the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
// ORDER //
- The appeal is dismissed.
- No order as to costs in appeal.
- Copy of order be furnished to both parties free of cost.
