Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Sharma, R.K. Verma, JJ.
THE MANAGER — Appellant
Vs.
SH. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondents
First Appeal No. 109 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2021
deficiency in service - Consumer Complaint - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complainant', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'deficiency' and Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service'. The court interpreted these provisions to establish the deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties and the unfair trade practice. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to allow the complaint and award compensation to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle suffered damages and was not repaired properly by the authorized service station, leading to a complaint against the service station for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and repair charges to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's arguments regarding the insurance company's actions and the absence of notice were not sustainable. It affirmed the findings of the District Commission regarding the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
Issues: The issues involved determination of the liability of the insurance company, the deficiency in service by the authorized service station, and the sustainability of the ex-parte order against the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the findings of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order of the District Commission was affirmed.
ORDER :
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 05.12.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Una camp at Hamirpur in Consumer Complaint No. 114/2017 titled Suresh Kumar Versus Managing Director M.S Competent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is owner of vehicle bearing No. HP-84-1330, which was duly insured with opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that vehicle suffered damages during the cloud burst on 06-08-2017. Complainant handed over the vehicle for necessary repair to opposite party No. 1 which is authorised service station. It is averred that Opposite party No.1 not repaired the vehicle properly and kept it in the workshop w.e.f. 09-08-2017 to 15-09-2017. Thereafter, complainant issued legal notice to opposite party No.1. Then opposite party No.1 handed over the vehicle and charged Rs. 19,605/- and Rs. 1,000/- as insurance charges. Complainant has taken cashless policy of the Maruti and opposite party No. 1 is also authorised service station so charging of amount for repair is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties and also unfair trade practice. With these averments prayer has been made to return the repair charges of Rs. 19,605/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.
3. Opposite party No.1 resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply. On merits, it is admitted that vehicle was brought to the opposite party No. 1 for repairs but it is denied that there is deficiency in service on behalf of opposite party No.1. It is submitted that when vehicle was brought job card was prepared and all the repairs needed were duly submitted to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 also sent his surveyor and allow the repairs of certain parts, which were carried out by opposite party No.1 on approval of opposite party No.2. Vehicle was brought to the workshop on 09-08-2017 and as per the surveyor's report repair was affected on 12-08-2017 and after repair complaint was informed but complainant has not taken the vehicle. It is further submitted that complainant was informed that in case he wanted to affect more repairs then he has to pay additional payment. Said vehicle was handed over to complainant in running condition. If there is any grievance of complainant then that is against opposite party No.2 and there is no liability of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 has no deficiency in service. With these averments prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party No.2 was duly served but did not appear to contest the complaint before learned District Commission so proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11-08-2018.
5. Thereafter, complainant and opposite party No.1 adduced the evidence in support of their respective claims.
6. Learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and directed opposite party No.2 to pay Rs. 19,605/- i.e. repair charges to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. Further, Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- on account of mental pain, harassment and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.
7. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Commission, opposite party No.2 filed present appeal before State Commission.
8. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant on merits and we have also perused entire record carefully.
9. Following points arise for determination in present appeal:
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
10. Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company has argued that insurance company has immediately deputed surveyor, when the vehicle was taken to the respondent No.2 for repair, who submitted his report and vehicle was repaired on the basis
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
