Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 32103
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
Dalbirsingh Mehtabsingh Tuli – Appellant
Versus
Automotive Ashok Leyland – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/CB2/27/CC/30/2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kaushik Mandal
For the Respondents: Chichbankar
A service provider’s failure to repair, protect, or return a client’s vehicle entrusted for service constitutes a continuing deficiency, and the limitation period is not a bar where persistent inaction occurs. Unsubstantiated claims of unpaid service charges by the service provider lack evidentiary value in consumer disputes.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), 17, 24A - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Limitation - Vehicle entrusted for repair not returned and allowed to deteriorate - Held, persistent inaction by service provider constitutes a continuing grievance, barring the application of limitation under Section 24A. (Paras 1, 13, 16)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Mere assertions in written submissions by O.P. regarding unpaid bills or partial repairs without supporting invoices or receipts cannot be relied upon to refute the complainant’s claim. (Para 14)
(C) Damages - Compensation for loss of vehicle - In absence of specific valuation evidence, the court must assess fair and reasonable value based on age, depreciation, and condition at the time of deposit. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The complainant entrusted his trailer to an authorized service provider for engine repairs in 2005. Despite years of persistent follow-ups, the vehicle was not repaired, and eventually, the complainant found it to be in a junk condition with missing parts. The service provider alleged the complaint was barred by limitation and claimed the vehicle owner failed to pay repair and parking charges, which the complainant denied.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found the service provider guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to maintain the vehicle or return it, noting that the provider failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate claims of repair or due payments. The plea of limitation was rejected due to the continuous nature of the service failure.
Issues: Whether the complaint was barred by limitation; whether the service provider was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; amount of compensation entitled.
Ratio Decidendi: A service provider's persistent failure to perform agreed repairs, coupled with misrepresentation regarding the status of the vehicle, constitutes a continuing cause of action, and unsubstantiated claims by the service provider regarding bills or parking fees cannot be countenanced against the consumer's evidence.
Result: Complaint partly allowed with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the vehicle, Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, and Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the relationship between the consumer and the service provider. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. identification of points of determination for the court. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of the arguments regarding consumer status and limitation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. the principle of continuing grievance in consumer service disputes. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. determination of compensation based on evidence and loss. (Para 20) |
ORDER
PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER
1. The present complaint is made by the complainant namely Dalbirsingh Mehtabsingh Tuli who is a resident of Nagpur against O.Ps. under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after it is referred to in short as “the C.P.Act 1986”).
2. The case unfolding from the consumer complaint of the complainant made concerning the incident in question is tha the is the owner of a Trailer registration number HR-38-0455 (known as Beavor Horse) valued at Rs.25,00,000 in the year 2005. The opposite party (O.P.), being the sole authorized dealer and service provider of Ashok Leyland, was entrusted with the repair of the said vehicle when it developed serious engine trouble on 22/06/2005. He took the vehicle to the workshop of the O.P., where the engineers and mechanics after inspection informed him that certain essential parts required for repair were not available and needed to be ordered from the company, which might take one to two months. So, he left the said vehicle in their custody for repairs. However, despite repeated visits and follow-ups, no repair work was carried out for several months and on personal inspection in December 2007, he found that several parts of the vehicle were missing. The workshop manager admitted this and promised to replace the missing parts and complete the repair, but no progress was made. Even after continuous persuasion and personal visits over the years, the O.P. failed to repair the vehicle and kept it unattended resulting in its deterioration. On 25/03/2012, he discovered that the vehicle had turned into junk with flattened tyres and missing parts. Thereafter he issued notices dated 03/04/2012 and 01/05/2012 seeking immediate repair or release of the vehicle, but the O.P. failed to act and instead made false claims that partial repairs had been done earlier. He refuted these claims pointing out that no repair was ever carried out and that there was never any agreement for advance payment. The conduct of O.P. amounted to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing him heavy financial losses, mental agony and harassment. Therefore,he filed the present complaint seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000 for the loss of the vehicle, Rs.51,50,000/-for the loss of business and Rs.3,00,000 for mental and physical harassment along with compensation and interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. The Opposite Party (O.P.) resisted the complainant’s claim and contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as it is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 24A of the C.P.Act 1986 since the alleged cause of action arose in 2005 and the complaint was filed much later. The O.P. also contended that the vehicle in question, being manufactured in 1995, had already completed its permissible life under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, no claim for compensation for its non-use can arise. The O.P. denied that the complainant was the owner of the said trailer or that its market value was Rs.25 lakhs in 2005. The O.P. also clarified that while it is an authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland, it is not the sole dealer as alleged. The O.P. further stated that the complainant had approached the O.P. for repairs without making any advance payment and that the required spare parts for such an old vehicle were unavailable and had to be specially ordered, which was beyond the O.P.’s control. The O.P. denied all allegations of negligence, delay, or deficiency in service and asserte
