Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/108/2022

SH DES RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

MODERN AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	108 of 2022
Date of Institution	27.07.2022
Date of Decision	04.11.2022

 

Sh. Des Raj, son of Sh. Salig Ram, aged 72 years, Residence of house No.2230, (GF) Sector-45C, Chandigarh, through General Power Attorney Holder (Son) Sh. Sandeep Chowdhry son of Sh. Des Raj, Resident of House No.2230,
Sector 45-C, U.T., Chandigarh-160047.

                                             …..Appellant/Complainant

Versus

Modern Automobiles, 4MW, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh-160002.

                   …..Respondent/Opposite Party          

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

               

Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Chowdhry, Authorized Representative of the     Appellant.

                      Sh. Sumit Aggarwal, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the Respondent.

                 

           

 

PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 12.07.2022, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be called as the District Commission only), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.39 of 2021, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took his car for service to the Opposite Party on 20.07.2019 and paid Rs.6150/- vide Annexure C-1. It was stated that on 21.07.2019, all the engine oil was drained out because the new axle oil ring fitted was not assembled correctly and therefore, the complainant again took the car to the workshop and paid Rs.178/- for replacing the axle oil ring vide Annexure C-2. It was further stated that the mechanic informed the complainant that all spark plugs, the broken engine fan belt, gear box and axle also need replacement and only problem was the oil leakage in the axle seal. It was further stated that the Opposite Party has the hard earned money of the complainant since a long time and they failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, was filed.
3. The Opposite Party filed its reply and stated that the complainant had visited the workshop of Opposite Party on 20.07.2019 for repairing his car which was 17 years old. It was further stated that after inspection of the vehicle, it was specifically apprised to the complainant that the axle seal is needed to be replaced and the same is not available in the store at present. The copy of the job card alongwith invoice is annexed as Annexure OP-2. It was further stated that after running the vehicle for 249 kms., in a single day, the complainant again visited the Opposite Party on 21.07.2019 and the Opposite Party resolved the problem of oil leakage for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.178/- vide Annexure OP-3. It was further stated that the complainant again visited the Opposite Party on 05.08.2019 whereby complainant demanded repair for transmission oil leakage but after exhaustively inspecting the car in question by service advisor of Opposite Party, it was ascertained that issue in the car in question has occurred on account of fitting of axle by the complainant from outside the authorized service centre of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The Opposite Party also issued advisory to the complainant that “unapproved fitments may affect you & vehicle safety. Kindly do not fit any unapproved fitments in your vehicle.” It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint.
5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Commission, dismissed the complaint.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the Parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The appellant/complainant has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the vehicle inspector of Chandigarh Administration did a thorough inspection of the car before giving it an extended validity fitness certificate for 5 years and therefore, it is unreasonable to accept that overnight car needed replacement of spark plugs, engine fan belt, gearbox and axle as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. The complainant/appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the parties and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. The vehicle bearing Registration No.CH03M-3609 was sold on 20.08.2003 and from that date upto 05.08.2019, the vehicle is being serviced by the respondent. The vehicle is about 17 years old and it was reported to be in excellent running condition by the appellant. As observed from the invoice dated 20.07.2019 of M/s Modern Automobiles, the appellant was charged Rs.6150/- for service of his vehicle when he had taken it to the company for resolving the problem of oil leakage. The next date on 21.07.2019 having driven the vehicle from 249 Kms., the oil leakage was again observed and therefore, the appellant again took his vehicle to the company. The appellant was charged Rs.178/- and the respondent rectified the fault. Again on 05.08.2019, the appellant visited with the respondent with the same problem of oil leakage. The respondent came to the conclusion that the oil leakage is occurring on account of fitting of axle from outside the authorized service centre of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and therefore they showed inability to rectify the fault. The appellant has been taking his vehicle for service to M/s Modern Automobile since the year 2003 and with that faith in the company he had taken his vehicle for repairs on 20.07.2019, 21.07.2019 and again on 05.08.2019. However, the respondent was unable to repair the vehicle. The appellant had to undergo a lot of mental agony and harassment because of the problem in the vehicle for oil leakage which was on account of fitting of axle from unauthorized service centre. This could have been conveyed to the appellant on 20.07.2019 itself when he had visited the company for the first time with the problem of oil leakage. Considering the above facts, we feel that it is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. Therefore, this Commission feels that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Commission is set aside.
12.  In view of above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and direction is issued to the respondent/Opposite Party as under:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.6150/- and Rs.178/- to the appellant which he paid for service of the car during his visit to the company on 20.07.2019 and 21.07.2019.
2. To pay a compensation amount of Rs.1000/- to the appellant for causing immense mental agony, harassment.
3.  To pay litigation cost of Rs.1000/-.

13.   This order shall be complied with by the respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay penal interest @9% p.a. apart from the above relief.
14. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
15. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

04.11.2022          

 

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                      Sd/-                

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-                  

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

 MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-                                                    

[PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

GP