Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Sunder, President, Mr. Dev Raj and Mrs. Padma Pandey, Members
AUTOPACE NETWORK PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
KEHAR SINGH SAINI - Respondent
First Appeal No. 228 of 2014
Decided on : 19-06-2014
Mr. Devinder Kumar for Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocates, for the Appellant
The main legal point established is that failure to respond to a legal notice can amount to deficiency in service, and charging a consumer for a service already paid for constitutes unfair trade practice.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - 12 - The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund an amount with interest, make payment towards compensation, and dismissed the complaint against the second opposite party.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant approached the first opposite party with a problem in a car wheel, which was then taken to the second opposite party for repair. The complainant was not satisfied with the services and filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions for refund and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first opposite party was deficient in rendering service and indulged in unfair trade practice by charging the complainant again for the repair, which was already paid to the second opposite party. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum.
Issues: Deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, liability of the opposite parties, and compliance with the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first opposite party's failure to respond to the legal notice amounted to deficiency in service. It also found that the first opposite party was responsible for the additional charges incurred by the complainant for the repair.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
ORDER
Mr. Dev Raj Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.4.2014, 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:
"11. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP No. 1 is directed:
(i) To refund an amount of Rs. 500 to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e. 6.7.2013 till realization.
(ii) To make payment of a composite amount of Rs. 5500 to the complainant towards compensation for unfair trade practice/deficiency in service and litigation expenses.
The complaint qua OP No. 2 stands dismissed.
12. This order shall be complied with by OP No. 1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amounts mentioned at S.Nos. (i) and (ii) of the para aforesaid shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization."
2. The facts, in brief, are that 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 party, but they never replied to the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party, 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 along with 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 consu
