Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 862 (HP)

Thakur Motors Telco Authorized Service Centre v. Sanjay Kumar

2009-10-12

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, SAROJ SHARMA

body2009
ORDER Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member - This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum Kangra, at Dharamshala:in Consumer Complaint No. 383/2006, dated 1.8.2008 whereby the District Forum below has partly allowed the complaint and ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 37,038/-to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Appellant was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs. 2000/-. 2. Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint are, that respondent is a registered owner of Indigo LX Car HP-40-A-0757 and had taken his vehicle to the service centre of appellant for service and removal of problem of overheating of its engine on the same day. The appellant did the needful and handed over the vehicle with the assurance that there will be no further problem. Thereafter on the same day when respondent was coming to Nagrota agwan the same problem occurred within 2 days. He took the vehicle to the service centre of the appellant, which was again serviced and its coolent was changed. Further averments in the complaint are that after running 500600 KMs, the vehicle again developed some other problem and he brought the vehicle again to the service station of the appellant on 5.6.2006. When again it was handed over to the respondent with the assurance, that the engine of the vehicle will not create the problem in future. 3. Further averments in the complaint are, that on 9.6.2006 respondent started his journey in the said vehicle from Nagrota agwan to Delhi and when he reached near Ambala, the engine of the vehicle got overheated and stopped functioning. The respondent made many efforts to start the vehicle, but in vain. The vehicle was brought to the service centre of Tata Motors at Ambala. On checking it was informed by the said Service Centre, that the engine of the vehicle was ceased due to overheating. Respondent again got it serviced at Ambala and cost of Rs. 41,982/- was charged. In this background present complaint has been filed against the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the appellant. 4. Respondent again got it serviced at Ambala and cost of Rs. 41,982/- was charged. In this background present complaint has been filed against the appellant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the appellant. 4. Appellant has contested and resisted the complaint and pleaded that there was no deficiency of service on its part and there was 'no defect in it. It stopped functioning' due to mishandling on the part of the respondent. Latter filed rejoinder to the version of the appellant, wherein, averments made in the complaint were reiterated. 5. Brief resume of the evidence led by the parties in nutshell is, that the appellant in support of its case filed affidavit of Sh. Arjun Singh, Prop/Manager of M/s Thakur Motors, Thakurdwara. Whereas respondent in support of his case has filed his own affidavit Ex. CW-1 and invoices Exts. C-1 to C-3 which relates to the period 5.4.2006 to 5.6.2006. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case minutely. 7. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Moreover no expert evidence has been led by the respondent to prove deficiency of service on the part of appellant relating to overheating of engine. Even report of the service engineer(s) at Ambala had also not been placed on record. Further according to him this is a case of mishandling of vehicle by the respondent, as a result whereof, there was persistent overheating of the engine. 8. Mr. Dinesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum below and argued that this is a clear cut cast of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant since vehicle had to be repeatedly taken to the workshop for the removal of faults because of deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Per him engine of the vehicle would not get overheated, in case if properly attended upon by the appellant. Due to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in not properly attending to the vehicle, trouble of overheating persisted. Finally putting him to lot of inconvenience at Ambala where it had to be got overhauled at the Authorized Service Station. 9. Due to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant in not properly attending to the vehicle, trouble of overheating persisted. Finally putting him to lot of inconvenience at Ambala where it had to be got overhauled at the Authorized Service Station. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as after going through the record of the case, we are satisfied that the order of the District Forum below is not legally sustainable and it deserves to be set aside. Reason being that in this case from the perusal of various retail invoices Exts. C-1 to C-3, it is clear that there was no fault of overheating in the engine which was alleged by the respondent in the complaint. Even this fact is clear from the job card No. 8517, dated 3.6.2006 that when the vehicle was taken after repair then there was a certificate of one Jagdish, under the head customer's signatures "I certify that the work has been done to my satisfaction and I have taken the delivery of the vehicle". Moreover affidavit of Jagdish had also not been placed on record. There is only one document of Metro Motors, Ambala, i.e. Job Card No. 21229 Ex. C-6 wherein it is mentioned "vehicle showing overheating". 10. In this case it appears that the respondent has started his journey in the said vehicle from Nagrota Bagwan to Delhi, and when he reached near Ambala it got overheated and stopped functioning. Thereafter he had contacted service centre of Tata Motors, at Ambala, where the vehicle was got serviced. The fact of overheating could not have escaped attention of the driver in the face of the gadgets i the car, particularly temperature meter, because it keeps to driver aware if the engine gets overheated. It is not the case of the respondent that meter did not indicate overheating of the engine. This shows that the driver did not bother to look to the meters including the temperature when the vehicle was on way to Delhi got seized at Ambala. This in our opinion is sheer callousness on the part of the person who was on wheel when the engine got seized. In such a situation for maintaining this complaint, respondent should have produced expert evidence to show. that despite temperature meter not indicated overheating of engine, it can, still get overheated. This in our opinion is sheer callousness on the part of the person who was on wheel when the engine got seized. In such a situation for maintaining this complaint, respondent should have produced expert evidence to show. that despite temperature meter not indicated overheating of engine, it can, still get overheated. Above all, it also not the case of the respondent that the temperature meter was defective/ non functional, so it did not indicate overheating of the engine. Thus it is evident that this is a case of no evidence, much less expert evidence produced from the side of the respondent to establish deficiency of service on the part of the appellant as claimed by the respondent. 11. No. other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion we' are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. As a result of it while setting aside the order of the District Forum Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No. 383/2006, dated 1.8.2008, the said complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.R.B.