AUTOPACE NETWORK PVT LTD Vs. KEHAR SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant qua Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) and directed it as under: -

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the the complainant is the owner of Maruti Swift VDI Car bearing registration No.PB -70C -1535, which was purchased in June, 2011. It was stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 6.7.2013, with a problem in a right hand side front wheel, the stud whereof got free, when the nut was about to open. It was further stated that the said car was checked by the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1, who informed the complainant that it (car) was to be taken to Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1, asked the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2, to open the right front wheel to undo (rectify) the problem. It was further stated that, thereafter, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.2, opened the wheel to undo the problem and, in the process of repair, he damaged the hub bearing also, which was replaced by him. It was further stated that the bill (Annexure C -6) of Rs.500/ - was raised, which was paid by the complainant. It was further stated that on returning to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, a bill slip of Rs.1639/ -, Annexure C -7, was also supplied to the complainant, which he duly paid. It was further stated that the complainant was not satisfied with the services rendered by Opposite Party No.1, for the reasons, firstly the said problem was not undone by the authorized Maruti Suzuki dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1, as the same was done by Opposite Party No.2, secondly the parts were changed by Opposite Party No.2, and thirdly the complainant was charged twice, fourthly Opposite Party No.1 committed breach of trust of the complainant in order to provide professional services. It was further stated that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2013, Annexure C -8, to the Opposite Parties, but they never replied to the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to Opposite Party No.1, to refund the cost, which was paid by him alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of payment; pay Rs.50,000/ - as compensation; Rs.20,000/ - for physical harassment and mental agony; and Rs.15,000/ - as litigation cost.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No.1, in its written statement, stated that the complaint was misconceived and baseless allegations of defects i.e. restarting problem in the vehicle without relying on any expert report from a recognized laboratory and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence were made in the complaint. It was further stated that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute a 'consumer dispute' under the Act as neither any manufacturing defect was proved in the vehicle, in question, nor any deficiency in service, was established against OP No.1. It was further stated that the complainant failed and neglected to follow the guidelines given in the operator's service book as recommended for smooth and better performance of the vehicle. It was further stated that the relationship existing between the Opposite Parties was on principal to principal basis, and Opposite Party No.1, could not be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by Opposite Party No.2, if any. It was further stated that on 6.7.2013, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, with the studs problem of right front wheel and the jobs mentioned in Annexure C -7, were carried out, for consideration and he paid the amount without any protest. It was further stated that after inspection of the vehicle by the employees of Opposite Party No.1, it was found that all four studs of right front wheel were free. It was further stated that under these circumstances, the mechanic of Opposite Party No.1 opened hub with knucle assembly and dismantled tyre and sent opened hub etc. to Opposite Party No.2 for the lathe job. It was further stated that with the help of press etc., Opposite Party No.2 was to cut loose studs and do bearing fitment jobs. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 carried out the required job under the instructions of the complainant, and he was under an obligation to pay the contractual amount. It was further stated that after completion of the above said job, the vehicle was brought to the workshop of Opposite Party No.1, for fitment. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 rendered services on charges, and it had charged the amount. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant had paid the alleged amount to Opposite Party No.2, then Opposite Party No.1 could not be held responsible for the same. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied being wrong.