APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRNOUNCED ON:   6^th  MAY,  2016

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          In this revision petition, the concurrent findings given by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in the impugned order dated 23.06.2015 in Appeal Case No.  FA-32/2014 and the order of the District Forum, Agartala (Tripura) in consumer complaint no. C.C. No. 91/2013 dated 08.07.2014, Mr. Malay Kr. Deb vs. The Managing Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vide which the said consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed, have been challenged.

2.      The case of the petitioner/complainant, in brief, is that he took his Ford Ikon Car, bearing no. TR 01 R 0276 for carrying out repairs to the workshop of respondent no. 3/opposite party no. 3, Oscar Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Agartala on 14.01.2013 (wrongly stated in the consumer complaint as 10.01.2013).  The said respondent/opposite party gave him an estimate of Rs. 14,646/- for the said repairs and made a detailed work order, a copy of which has been produced by the petitioner alongwith the present revision petition.  The petitioner/complainant stated that against the said estimate of Rs. 14,646/-, he made an advance payment of
Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent/opposite party and he was assured that the work will be completed within 30 to 45 days.  However, the respondent/opposite party failed to deliver the vehicle back to him in time.  He visited the workshop on 04.04.2013 to check the status of the vehicle and to take a test drive.  However, he observed defects in the said vehicle, a list of which was drawn on that date i.e. on 04.04.2013 as follows:-

          “1.     AC evaporator (hot air passing but sometimes also cool),

          2.      Central lock with remote (if possible)

          3.      Wheel alignment

          4.      Electrical system (all lights check)

          5.      Headlight insufficient

          6.      Full body paint including denting removing (34,000/-)

          7.      Underbody point and

          8.      All others as discussed with Mr. Anil Sharma, Head Manager”

2.      The respondent/opposite party undertook work on the points listed above but took a long time in repairing the vehicle and informed him on 13.07.2013 to take the delivery of the vehicle.  When the complainant approached the respondent no. 3/opposite party no. 3, they stated that the total repair bill was Rs. 1,21,152/- and that after deducting the advance payment of Rs. 30,000/-, the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 91,152/- to them for the said repairs.  The complainant refused to take the delivery of the vehicle, or to take a test drive, but alleged that the vehicle was still not defect-free.  He filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum, alleging that the opposite parties were deficient in providing service to him and had abused and insulted him.  They were required to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the conveyance used during the period of repairs, and a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, besides returning the vehicle to him in good condition.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the respondent no. 1/opposite party no. 1, M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle and hence, they had no liability towards the complainant.  The respondents no. 2 and 3, the dealers also filed reply before the District Forum, denying the allegations made by the complainant and stated that as per job card no. 0095 dated 14.01.2013, in respect of the said vehicle, they were required to do the following:-

          (1)     full suspension check-up and repair

          (2)     break system complete check-up and repair

          (3)     front bumper paint.

4.      The respondent/opposite party completed the above works on 22.02.2013 and asked the complainant several times over phone to visit their workshop and take the vehicle back.  However, the petitioner visited the workshop on 04.04.2013 only i.e. after 40 days.  He was asked to take delivery of the vehicle by paying the balance amount of the total bill which was Rs. 42,257/-.  However, the complainant entrusted them with some additional task as detailed and admitted in the copy of the note dated 04.04.2013, attached by him with the petition.  The complainant was informed that they had to bring certain spare parts from Chennai to Agartala for the said purpose and it was verbally agreed that the work shall be completed by 23.06.2013.  According to the respondent, the repair work was completed on 23.06.2013 and the complainant was informed and asked to take delivery of the vehicle.  He visited their workshop on 13.07.2013, but refused to pay the balance amount of Rs. 91,352/- because of which the vehicle could not be released to him.

5.      The District Forum, after examining the contentions of both the parties, dismissed the complaint vide their order dated 08.07.2014, stating that the complainant had failed to prove his allegations that the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 were negligent and deficient in rendering services to him.  Being aggrieved from the said order, the complainant challenged the same before the State Commission by way of an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.06.2015.  Being aggrieved from the said order, the complainant is before us by way of the present revision petition. 

6.      During hearing before us, it was found that since no manufacturing defect had been alleged in the complaint, the manufacturer i.e. respondent no. 1, Ford India Pvt. Ltd. was neither necessary nor proper party in the case.  The name of respondent no. 1 was, therefore, deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 15.03.2016.

7.      The main point for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents/opposite parties no. 2 and 3 have committed any deficiency in service towards the petitioner/complainant, given the facts and circumstances of the case.  The facts as stated in the present revision petition and also in the complaint by the petitioner/complainant himself, indicate that when he initially visited the workshop of respondent no. 3/opposite party no. 3, an estimate of Rs. 14,646/- was given to him for carrying out the necessary repairs of the car.  It is not understood as to how he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the said repairs, i.e. more than double the amount of the estimate.  The petitioner himself has attached a copy of a document alleged to have been given by opposite party no. 3 with caption ‘repair order details’, which mentions the amount of estimate to be Rs. 14,646/-.  However, the document prepared on 04.04.2013 mentioned eight different items as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, for which the repair work was to be carried out.  One of the items is full body paint including dent removal for a cost of Rs. 34,000/-.  In the reply given by opposite parties no. 2 and 3, all these eight items find mention, meaning thereby that there was agreement between the two parties that these items were to be attended to during the repairs.  It is made out, therefore, that when the complainant visited the workshop on 04.04.2013, he entrusted several additional jobs to be done by the respondents, for which they raised an additional bill for repairs, but the petitioner/complainant refused to pay the amount demanded by the respondents.  The complainant even refused to perform the test drive of the said vehicle, when he went to collect the vehicle on 13.07.2013. 

8.      In his complaint, the complainant has listed several other defects, noticed by him, when he went to take the delivery of the vehicle.  It has been alleged that the battery was alright prior to repairing, but it was changed by the respondent unnecessarily, incurring additional costs.  However, the version given by the complainant is not corroborated by any evidence on record.  On the other hand, the version given by the respondent is supported by filing necessary affidavits by them in which they stated that additional repair works were entrusted to them by the complainant on 04.04.2013.  The version of the opposite parties that they had to bring certain spare parts from Chennai to Agartala to get the vehicle repaired and for which, certain additional cost were incurred, has not been controverted by the complainant anywhere.  The concurrent findings given by the District Forum as well as the State Commission, therefore, do not merit any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents nowhere stands proved.  It is made out that the complainant wanted to avoid the additional payment for the repairs carried out by the respondents.  It is also clear that the scope of work entrusted to the respondents was much more than that stated at the time of making initial estimate of Rs. 14,646/-, otherwise the complainant would not have paid an advance of Rs. 30,000/- to them.

9.      It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, interference should be made only, if there is a patent error of law or jurisdiction in the orders passed by the lower courts.  The facts and circumstances of the present case do not call for any such interference as detailed above. 

10.    During arguments before us, it was stated that the vehicle had since been lying with the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 as the petitioner had failed to collect the same after repairs.  It is directed, therefore, that the vehicle shall be returned by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to the petitioner after charging the amount payable by him as on the date of repairs.  While doing so, the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the vehicle is in proper road worthy condition and they shall provide a certificate to this effect to the petitioner given by an independent technical expert.

11.    The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction as stated above.