SHAILENDRA SINGH BHADORIA Vs. AMP MOTORS & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Shailendra Singh Bhadoria, complainant, herein has allegedly purchased a Jaguar car on 01.02.2011 on a consideration of Rs.82,95,015/-. In February 2015, the complainant sent his aforesaid vehicle no.CH01 AF 0112 for repairs/ service to the opposite party service station. After inspecting the vehicle, the opposite party advised the complainant for replacement of gear-box, rack and pinion steering, pump power steering and kit casting service etc. For the aforesaid work, the opposite party gave an estimate of Rs.15,18,941/-. The complainant on being satisfied with the estimate, instructed the opposite party on 13.03.2015 to carry out the repairs/ service. The opposite party thereafter carried out the repair work and released the car of the complainant on 09.06.2015 after receiving the bill amount of Rs.9,87,979/-. It is the case of the complainant that after taking the delivery of the car, while the driver of the complainant was going back the engine of the car got heated within a distance of 5 kms and smoke started emanating from the engine. The driver thus informed the opposite party about the fault and even e-mail in this regard was sent on 15.06.2015. The opposite party thereafter, got the car picked up through his online partner M/s Bajaj Allianz. The opposite party thereafter informed the complainant that there was no major fault in the vehicle and after repairing the fault asked the complainant to get the car picked up. The driver of the complainant before taking the delivery of the car, asked for a test drive but the opposite party forced him to take the delivery of the car without test drive. While returning the engine of the car again got heated and thus smoke started coming out. The complainant once again approached the opposite party and the opposite party told him that the reason for overheating of the engine was sticky thermostat which was replaced but thereafter the alternator of the vehicle failed. The opposite party took the stand that on a thorough inspection, it was found that the original wiring and fuses of the car had been tampered with which was the cause for the failure of the alternator. It was also claimed by the opposite party that the failure of the alternator and fuse box had to be replaced even the local horn with additional wires was found in the car. The opposite party also informed the complainant that the car requires additional work which was not done before, namely:

(2.) According to the complainant he has already spent a sum of Rs.9,87,979/- excluding the picking charges of Rs.5,000/- on the repair of the car, which was not satisfactory. Therefore, the opposite party was requested to repair the faulty car without any additional costs. The opposite party has failed to oblige by repairing the car or refunding the amount charged for the repairs. Claiming this to be a deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the following prayers:

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction from the facts narrated above. It is clear that the grievance of the complainant is basically regarding the failure of the opposite party to repair the car despite having charged Rs.9,87,979/-. However, the complainant has inflated the value of his claim by making a prayer for refund of the cost of the car, besides, the repair expenses and Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation which in our considered view is highly inflated claim filed with a malafide intention to by-pass the hierarchy of the Consumer Fora.