Haryana

StateCommission

A/1429/2023

AMIT AUTO WORKS - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEWA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

VIKAS KUMAR

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1429 of 2023

                   Date of Institution:18.12.2023

          Date of Decision:22.07.2024

 

Amit Auto Works, Opposite Near Jat College, Jind, District Jind 126102 through its proprietor.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Mewa Singh S/o Sh.Bhagel Singh, R/o Lakkar Mandi, Noharia Bazar, Ward No.21, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri  Vikas Kumar, counsel for the appellant.

                   Sh. Mewa Singh respondent in person

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

Opposite Party-Appellant-Amit Auto Works, has filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 18.10.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa whereby complaint filed by complainant-Mewa Singh was allowed with direction to the OP to refund  the amount of Rs.20,500/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.06.2022 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant was also entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within the above said stipulated period.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that  complainant is the registered owner of an auto rickshaw Sitara bearing registration No.HR 57/9814. The complainant has been running this Auto Rikshaw for earning his livelihood and except it, the complainant has no other source of income.   He wanted to get the said auto rickshaw modified and thereby making it suitable for taking students from their houses to school and then from school to their houses.  On inquiry, the complainant came to know that OP was running a workshop at Jind and undertakes such work of modification of automobile vehicle. He took his vehicle at workshop of OP at Jind and inquired about the modification of auto rikshaw.  OP agreed to undertake the modification in automobile vehicle. The complainant delivered his aforesaid auto rickshaw to the OP in May, 2021 for modification i.e. to use heavy steel sheet, to apply yellow paint,  to affix the flexible window, to affix two windows on the rear portion, to affix three fans, to affix the light, to affix two windows in front portion and also to affix signal.  The OP demanded Rs.38,000/- for the above said works and complainant agreed for the same. The OP asked him to come after 15 days for taking back his auto rickshaw. He visited the OP after 15 days but the work was not completed and OP sought more time for work.  He again visited after 15 days but again OP put off the matter and in this manner he took about 15 rounds at the workshop of OP. Ultimately on 10.11.2021, the complainant alongwith Sonu visited the OP and then he delivered the said auto rickshaw to the complainant, but OP had not done the modification work as desired by the complainant. OP charged Rs.38,000/- from him and issued bill No.216 dated 10.11.2021.   It is further averred that  as desired by the complainant, OP had not done the modification work and made the changes in the same as per his own wish and OP used and applied very light and inferior quality sheet instead of heavy steel sheet, applied black colour instead of yellow paint, applied curtain instead of flexible window, affixed daala instead of two windows on the rear portion and did not affix any fan, light and also applied curtains instead of two windows in front portion and also did not affix any signal.  He lodged a protest with the OP, but, OP did not listen to the same rather threatened him in the presence of Sonu.  The above auto rickshaw was to be modified by the OP within 15 days time, but OP took six months and during these six months neither he could run his auto rickshaw nor could earn any income from the same.  He was forced to part with his work of transporting the school children to other auto rickshaw driver namely Prem Singh and thus he suffered loss of income of Rs. Four lacs during this period. The OP did not return the steel sheet, which was earlier affixed on the auto rickshaw, the weight of which was about 2.50 quintals and at the relevant time, the price of scrap steel was Rs.34/- per kg and thus the scrap steel worth Rs.8500/- was kept by the OP and complainant is entitled to recover this amount from the OP.  He got inspected his auto rickshaw after the aforesaid modifications from Kuldeep Singh Mechanic who estimated the cost of modification as Rs.26,000/- and thus OP charged a sum of Rs.12,000/- in excess from him. Thus there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The complainant  prayed to refund the amount of Rs.12,000/- charged in excess from him; to pay Rs.8500/- as price of scrap steel, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for causing loss of income to him and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the opposite party- Amit Auto Works by filing its  written statement in which OP raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; locus standi, concealment of material facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party, jurisdiction, etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      It was further alleged that OP was not doing the said modification work. There was no firm under the name and style of Amit Auto Works.   OP neither made any modification in the Auto Rickshaw nor demanded alleged amount of Rs.38,000/-. The OP did not issue any alleged bill No.216 dated 01.11.2021 and there were no writing or signature of answering OP on the alleged bill. When OP did not make any modification in the Auto rickshaw of the complainant then the question of such changes does not arise at all. Thus there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

5.      We have heard Sh. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Mewa Singh-respondent in person, perused the material available on record and have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent in person.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that  the complainant was neither contacted for modification of the auto rickshaw nor got any work done from OP.  Further argued that OP neither demanded alleged amount of Rs.38,000/- from complainant nor issued any alleged bill No.216 dated 1.11.2021. Learned counsel for OP-appellant, while urging for acceptance of this appeal, has contended that impugned order dated 18.10.2023 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission-Sirsa is illegal and wrong.

7.      Respondent-Sh. Mewa Singh vehemently argued that he took his auto rickshaw to the OP for some modifications, but, despite charging Rs.38,000/-  by the OP from him, the work done by the OP was of inferior quality i.e.  the OP applied very light and inferior quality sheet instead of heavy steel sheet, applied black colour instead of yellow paint, applied curtain instead of flexible window, affixed daala instead of two windows on the rear portion and did not affix any fan, light and also applied curtains instead of two windows in front portion and also did not affix any signal.  Learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8.      Perusal of the impugned order shows that complainant approached OP for doing modification work of his auto rickshaw at Jind and he placed cash credit memo of OP’s firm namely Amit Auto Works, Jind. These documents also bear the signature of Suresh Kumar-OP. The learned District Consumer Commission also held that OP has charged an amount of Rs.38,000/- from the complainant for the above said modification work of his auto rickshaw. Rather the OP has also retained the auto rickshaw for about six months and the complainant suffered loss of income.  Complainant has also placed on file report of Kuldeep Singh Mechanic, which shows that work of modification done by OP including labour work was Rs.26,000/-.   It is well proved in the impugned order that OP has charged excess amount of Rs.12,000/- from him for doing the above said work of modification and also retained the scrap of steel worth Rs.8500/-.  OP retained the auto rickshaw for about six months,  the OP should have modified the auto rickshaw within the stipulated period. In view of the above, the complainant has suffered loss of income.  Since, the complainant has suffered losses, mentally, physically and monetarily due to the unprofessional, unqualified act on the part of the OP.  The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stand dismissed.

9.      Statutory amount of Rs.23,673/- was deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be refunded to complainant-respondent-Mewa Singh against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission as accordingly directed.

10.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

11.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

12.    File be consigned to record room.

 

22^nd July, 2024                    Manjula                  S.P.Sood                    T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member                 Judicial Member        President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)