R B SHARMA Vs. PROPRIETOR, SAHU AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petition no. 2880 of 2010 and First Appeal no. 439 of 2008 have been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the orders dated 29.04.2010 & 22.09.2008 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1324 of 2004. Hence, we propose to pass a common order as these emanates from the very same complaint and first appeal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are taken from Revision petition no. 2880 of 2010. The complainant R B Sharma engaged the services of opposite party on 26.02.2001 for repair including denting and painting of his vehicle No.UP-78B-3962. The complainant had settled a sum of Rs.8500/- on account of the labour charges for the required work of denting, painting, dashboard work, brake change, steering booster, pipe line filling etc. The spare parts required to be fitted in the vehicle were to be provided by the complainant. The complainant had given an advance of Rs.2000/- for which no receipt was issued. The repair work was not carried out for several months. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party evaded the issue on one pretext or the other. It is the case of the complainant that apart from the advance, of Rs.2000/- paid in February 2001, the petitioner had paid Rs.1000/- on 06.07.2001 and another Rs.1000/- on 07.07.2001 and Rs.1200/- on 17.08.2001. Despite that the opposite party did not carry out the denting painting work as per the settled terms and conditions. On the advice of the opposite party, the complainant got fitted a new radiator worth Rs.1700/- and a new battery worth Rs.1500/- in the vehicle. The opposite party, however, failed to complete the repair work. Claiming this to be a deficiency in service, a consumer complaint was filed in District Forum Kanpur City. The complainant prayed that the opposite party may be directed to make payment of Rs.1.80 lakh and till the payment is made pay a sum of Rs.500/- per day with interest at the rate of 12% thereon and Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses, advocate fees and mental agony.

(3.) The opposite party admitted to the extent that labour charges were settled for Rs.8400/-. The complainant, however, had only made payment of Rs.4,000/- for the first time on 12th June 2001. Further, he had tallied the job card with the inspection of the entire work done on the concerned vehicle. The spare parts were in fact purchased and fitted by the opposite party. The complainant had only provided battery and radiator and that also after a considerable gap. The opposite party denied that the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- on 26.02.2001. The opposite party further stated that after making payment of Rs.4,000/- on 12.06.2001, the complainant left the work shop after stating that the remaining amount would be paid later on, but he did not turn up either for making the payment or taking the vehicle. In fact the road permit of the said vehicle has not been issued since 1995, neither the road tax or goods tax of the vehicle had been paid since 1997. Therefore, the complainant parked the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party perhaps considering it to be a safe parking space for the vehicle.