SUDESH BERRY Vs. KULDIP PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"?), by the Complainants, is to the Order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the State Commission"?) in First Appeal No.154 of 2013 and First Appeal No.202 of 2013. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed both the Cross Appeals filed by the Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 3 against the Order dated 31.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (for short, "the District Forum"?). By the said Order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint preferred by the Complainants, has directed the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3, jointly and severally, to deliver the duly repaired car to the Complainants on payment of balance agreed amounts of ?1,50,000/- and ?1,00,000/- by the Complainants; pay ?50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to pay ?10,000/- as costs of litigation, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that: the Petitioners/Complainants, members of an Undivided Hindu Family, purchased a Honda City Car manufactured by Honda Siels Cars India, Opposite Party No.2, in the year 1999. Unfortunately, on 26.09.2010, the said car collided with a divider near Dabri Bus Stand, New Delhi and suffered damages. On 28.09.2010, the car was taken to the Authorized Service Centre, namely, M/s. Samara Auto Max Honda Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Party No.3 (for short, "the Service Centre"?) where the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the New India Assurance Company examined the car and estimated the costs of repairs at ?1,31,318.30/-. Since the car was insured for a sum of ?91,800/- only, he recommended reimbursement of the amount of ?55,373.95/-. However, the Service Centre of the Honda Car estimated the costs of repairs approximately at ?1,50,000/-. As the car had run only 37,682 kms. from the date of its purchase, the Complainants agreed to get it repaired and paid a sum of ?50,000/- as advance to the Service Centre. The expected date of delivery of car after repairs was given to the Complainants as 30.10.2010. However, on the said date, when the Complainants enquired over telephone about the delivery of car, they were informed to contact after three/four days as some of the parts of the car were not available.

(3.) The Complainants visited the Service Center on 18.11.2010 and found that the car was still not repaired and it was lying dismantled. They were informed that the cost of repairs had been increased to ?1.8 lakhs. The Complainants were compelled either to give their consent for repair of the car or to take away the car after paying the expenses of dismantling and reassembling the parts etc. Left with no option, Complainants granted their consent for repair of the Car, however, the Car was not repaired by the Service Centre till 24.11.2010 when the Complainants were informed that the costs of repair had further increased to ?2.4 lakhs as some more defects had been noticed in the Car. The Complainants strongly objected the said increase in the repair costs in arbitrary manner. However, ultimately, conceded their consent with heavy head and heart. Even still, the car was not repaired. Being fed up with the delaying tactics of the Service Centre, the Complainants sent a legal notice by registered post to the General Manger, Service Centre as well as the Manufacturer on 07.03.2011 and reminder on 08.04.2011. Vide letter dated 15.03.2011, the Service Centre, informed the Complainants that the vehicle had been duly repaired and the delivery can be taken by payment of ?2,71,489/-. On receipt of response on 19.04.2011, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Service Centre demanding the retail invoice.