The complainant / respondent took his car No. MH 28 C 5899 to the petitioner company on 21.3.2013 for rectification of the faults which the car had developed. He was charged a sum of Rs.29,266/- for the repair work. However, the vehicle again went out of order and was again taken to the workshop of the petitioner. The vehicle was retained in the workshop for carrying out the repairs. The case of the complainant / respondent is that the injector of the vehicle was broken by the mechanics of the petitioner and thereafter the vehicle was not returned to him after re
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
airs. This is also his case that no estimate for undertaking the repairs was given to him. The complainant therefore, sent a notice dated 15.5.2013 to the petitioner, demanding delivery of the car. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking possession of the vehicle along with compensation etc.2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which claimed that the vehicle was repaired by them with the consent of the complainant and was ready for being delivered except, replacement of Turbo and that they were entitled to payment of Rs.1,24,666.42 towards repair of the vehicle, besides parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day from the date of the completion of the job. The petitioner also alleged that since the vehicle was being used as a taxi, the complainant could not be said to be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.3. The District Forum vide its order dated 05.7.2014, directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.15,914/- to the petitioner towards repair of the vehicle. The petitioner was directed to deliver the vehicle on receipt of the aforesaid amount. The District Forum also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. The petitioner was permitted to adjust the amount of Rs.15,914/- out of the compensation payable to the complainant. The District Forum also directed payment of daily compensation of Rs.200/- per day if the petitioner did not comply with its order within thirty days.4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission dismissed the appeal except to the extent the District Forum had directed payment of daily compensation of Rs.200/- per day. Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.5. There is no evidence of the vehicle, in question, having been purchased and used for a commercial purpose. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea that the complainant / respondent was not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.6. Thus, the only question which arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,24,666.42 for repair of the vehicle along with the parking charges @ Rs.500/- per day from the date on which the repair work was completed. In the ordinary course of business, when a vehicle is brought to a workshop for repairs, a job card is opened, an estimate is prepared and approval of the customer to the said estimate is taken before undertaking the repair of the vehicle. No job card in respect of the vehicle of the complainant was produced by the petitioner before the District Forum and there is no explanation for not opening or producing the said job card. Even otherwise, there is absolutely no documentary evidence of the petitioner company having given estimate of Rs.1,24,666.42 to the complainant and having got the said estimate approved from him. Though, a proforma invoice has been placed on record by the petitioner, the said invoice admittedly does not bear the signature of the complainant. It is therefore, obvious that no consent or approval from the complainant was taken before repairing the vehicle at the cost of Rs.1,24,666.42. Had the estimate been given to the complainant and his consent been sought, he would have been in a position to decide whether to undertake so much expenditure on a vehicle which was already five years old at that time or not. Having repaired the vehicle without approval from the complainant, the petitioner cannot seek to recover the amount of Rs.1,24,666.42 from him.7. Even otherwise, there is no evidence of the repair work in the vehicle of the complainant being worth Rs.1,24,666.42. The complainant got the vehicle inspected from an Automobile Engineer who opined that the value of the repairs was not more than Rs.15,914/-. The petitioner company did not examine any Automobile Engineer to prove that the cost of the repair work actually carried out by it was to the extent of Rs.1,24,666.42. Therefore, the concurrent finding of fact returned by the fora below as regards the value of the repair work carried by the petitioner company does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.8. As far as parking charges are concerned, there is no evidence of the petitioner having even asked the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. In any case, the petitioner was not willing to deliver the vehicle without collecting a sum of Rs.1,24,666.42 as repair charges. The said demand was wholly unjustified and therefore, the complainant was not obliged to pay the said amount in order take delivery of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner company is not entitled to recover any parking charges from the complainant.9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no good reason to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the fora below. The revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
"2017 (1) CLT 296,"