Date of filing :14.08.2023 Date of order :21.05.2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1021 OF 2023 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 58 OF 2023 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : LATUR.

The Manager/Director, Appellant Volkswagen Pune West, (Adv.A.P.Malani)

B.U.Bhandari Auto Pvt. Ltd,.

Survey No.142, Wakad, Mumbai-Bangalore Highway, Pune Through Authorised Signatory, Mr.Hrishikesh Dnyaneshwar Purandare, R/o Survery No.142, Wakad, Mumbai-Bangalore Highway, Opp. Hotel Sayaji, Pune 411 057.

VERSUS Mr.Madhav Ramrao Patil, Respondent R/o Ravan Smruti, Trimurti Nagar, (Adv.AltafhussainKazi)

Savewadi, Latur.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Dr.Nisha A.Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

Per Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

The appellant has challenged in this appeal the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Latur (in short, the District Commission) in C.C.No. 58/2023 wherein appellant is original opponent and the respondent is complainant.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-

The respondent is owner of four wheeler, Volkswagen Vento Highline car MH-24-V-7766 (in short the vehicle) which was purchased in 2011. Appellant is the authorized service center of the vehicle. Respondent experienced some problem in the vehicle, so on 08.10.2022 he along with driver went to appellant for repair the vehicle and remove the problems in it. Respondent informed the problems and after inspection of the vehicle, appellant given quotation of Rs.2,50,000/- for repairing the vehicle and assured the respondent that no more amount is required for repairing. Accordingly respondent paid Rs.75,000/- as an advance and left the vehicle with appellant for repairing. It is agreed that the delivery of vehicle would be given on 15.10.2022, but after several request of respondent about delivery of vehicle, appellant has not delivered the vehicle till December 2022. On 30.12.2022 appellant informed respondent that the vehicle is repaired and given the bill of Rs. 7,78,389.50/- for repairing the vehicle. Appellant given quotation of Rs. 2,50,000/-and assured respondent that no more amount is required for repairing but illegally and without the approval of respondent given a huge bill of Rs. 7,78,389.50/-. As such respondent filed consumer complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by appellant towards him and claiming to hand over the vehicle, to refund the advance amount of Rs. 75,000/- with 18 % interest, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/-for cost of litigation. Respondent filed copy of RC, copy of job card and estimate, copy of disputed bill etc.

3.- The appellant appeared before the District Commission and field the written statement and thereby resisted the complaint and denied the allegations. Appellant submitted that the vehicle was 11 years old and brought in their workshop in break down condition.

The vehicle was not in use for long time, the electrical system and suspension of the vehicle were totally failed and all four tyres of the vehicle has been worn out and were due for change. The estimate of Rs. 2,50,000/-was initially given to respondent on 08.10.2022 with clear understanding that the actual repair cost will be informed only after throughout inspection of the vehicle. As per the initial approval of respondent, appellant carried out certain necessary repairs. The son of respondent visited the work shop of appellant in December 2022 and thereafter with the consent of respondent the engine of the vehicle was dismantled. Upon dismantling the engine it revealed that the engine of the vehicle has suffered serious damage and for bringing the vehicle in running condition, it requires repairing, incurring cost of Rs. 6,86,265/- The actual estimate with detailed cost sheet was informed to respondent on 30.12.2022 but respondent ha