First Appeal No. 228 of 2014. Case: Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kehar Singh Saini. Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 228 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Devinder Kumar for P.K. Kukreja, Advocates |
| Judges | Sham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padma Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 65 (UT Chd.) |
| Judgement Date | June 19, 2014 |
| Court | Union Territory State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial