Versus
- Globe C.V. Pvt. Ltd., Village Mehandipur, G.T. Road, District Ludhiana through its Service Manager Shri Hardeep Singh.
- Hardeep Singh, Service Manager Globe C.V. Pvt. Ltd., Village Mehandipur, G.T. Road, District Ludhiana …..Opposite parties
Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Mandeep Sharma, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh. Jyoti Sarup, Advocate.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-07-AS-8933, which was sent for repair on 16.02.2019 ad is lying parked at the workshop of the opposite parties. The truck was repaired by the opposite parties vide job order dated 16.02.2019 and received an amount of Rs.2127/- from the complainant. The complainant stated that when he visited the workshop of the opposite parties to take delivery of the vehicle, he shocked to see that the opposite parties have removed many original costly parts of the truck worth Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant complained to opposite party No.2 Hardeep Singh then he confirmed that several parts are missing from the truck and assured to refit the removed parts in the truck and asked the complainant to get the truck after sometime. The complainant claimed to have many times visited workshop of opposite parties to take his truck back but they have not refitted the removed parts in the truck. During this period, lockdown was imposed. Thereafter, the complainant number of times approached opposite parties to deliver the fully repaired truck by affixing all the removed parts and in a good running condition. The complainant further stated that in the month of October 2021, he received a message from the opposite parties that the vehicle is ready for delivery and told him for payment of Rs.2127/- as per job order. After making payment of Rs.2127/- and when the complainant came to workshop of the opposite parties to take delivery of the truck, the opposite parties illegally demanded parking charges from him. The opposite parties sent an email dated 18.10.2021 to the complainant by demanding parking charges @ Rs.250/- per day from the day of parking the vehicle for repair. The complainant told the opposite parties that there was no fault on his part as he many times visited their workshop to take delivery of the vehicle but many costly parts of the vehicle were stolen which the opposite parties assured to refit and they themselves failed to deliver the vehicle in a running condition. According to the complainant, the demand of parking charges by the opposite parties is illegal. The complainant has suffered financial loss of Rs.1000/- per day from 16.02.20219 and even he has to pay the loan installments to the bank without any work. The complainant served a legal notice dated 28.10.2021 to the opposite parties but with no effect.
The complainant further stated that he has suffered mental pain, agony, tension besides financial loss due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant has prayed to issue direction to the opposite parties to deliver the repaired vehicle with all the parts on receipt of repair bill of Rs.2127/-along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay Rs.1000/- per day as financial loss since 16.02.2019. The complainant also claimed litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.
2. Upon notice, the OPs filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; suppression of material facts; the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint etc. The Ops stated that The complaint has been field with ulterior motive to avoid to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- due against the complainant for parking charges. The complainant was asked to take his vehicle on the next day of 16.02.20219 as it was ready otherwise parking charges of Rs.250/- per day will be applicable. However, the complainant did not despite requests made by the OPs and as such, the complainant himself is at fault and is liable to pay the parking charges.
On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. The Ops averred that the driver of the complainant signed the customer satisfaction note on 16.02.2019. They called upon the complainant to take his vehicle as there was no space in their workshop otherwise an amount of Rs.250/- per day will be charged as parking charges which the complainant agreed and did not turn up to bring his vehicle. The complainant visited the OPs on 09.08.2021 to take delivery of his vehicle and paid Rs.2127/- but when the opposite parties demanded parking charges from the complainant he flatly refused to pay the same. An email was also sent to the complainant to pay the parking charges which he flatly refused to pay. The OPs further averred that they are ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant if he pays the parking charges approximately Rs.3,00,000/-. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of registration certificate, Ex. C2 is the copy of challan No.207 dated 06.07.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 28.10.2021, Ex. C4 is the postal receipt, Ex. C5 is the copy of email dated 09.08.2021, Ex. C6 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C7 to Ex. C20 are the photographs of the vehicle and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Kulwinder Singh Mundi, Assistant Manager Service of the opposite parties along with documents Ex. R1 is copy of authority letter, Ex. R2 is the copy of gate pass slip, Ex. R3 is the copy of job slip dated 16.02.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of job card dated 16.02.2019, Ex. R5 is the copy of job card workshop copy backside, Ex. R6 is the copy of parts requisition slip, Ex. R7 is the copy of customer satisfaction note, Ex. R8 is the copy of instant feedback form, Ex. R9 is the copy of tax invoice dated 16.02.2019 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by the complainant.
6. The complainant, an owner of truck bearing registration No.PB-07-AS-8933 delivered the vehicle for repairs with the opposite parties vide gate entry slip Ex. C1 on 15.02.2019 at 10.10 PM. The bill of repair was generated to be Rs.2127/- on 16.02.2019 and the driver of the complainant also accorded customer satisfaction Ex. R7 as well as Ex. R8. Although the complainant had been stating that he had been repeatedly visited the workshop to take the delivery of the vehicle and also he allegedly found theft of original spare parts from the truck costing him Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- but the complainant has not mentioned when he first visited the workshop to take delivery or the date and time of subsequent occasions when he went to take delivery of his truck. Even the story of theft of the spare parts seems to be concocted one as no police report, FIR was ever lodged by him. The complainant also did not complain to the senior functionaries of the opposite parties with regard to unauthorized removal of costly parts of the vehicle. The complainant also introduced the factum of clamping of lockdown in an attempt to explain the delay. In fact, after delivering the vehicle, the complainant did not show any real intent to take back the vehicle and he visited the premises of the opposite parties after a lapse of 2½ years i.e. on 09.08.2021 and paid the repair charges. When the opposite parties demanded parking charges from the complainant and even sent an email dated 18.10.2021 to him, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.10.2021 Ex. C3 and also thereafter, filed the present complaint. Filing of the complaint is not bonafide. Further perusal of registration certificate Ex. C1 shows that the registration of the vehicle was valid up to 01.01.2019 and when the complainant delivered the vehicle for repair on 15.02.2019, the registration of the vehicle had already expired. Another important fact has also been noticed by this Commission that the vehicle was financed with some financial institution and it also a strong possibility that the complainant had parked the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite parties so as to avoid the effort of repossession by the said financial institution. The demand of parking charges on the part of the opposite parties cannot be said to be unreasonable although its rate per day could be a moot point. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
8. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Sanjeev Batra)
Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:26.10.2023.
Gobind Ram.
