Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 01-03-2016, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III (South) in RBT/CC/113/2015. Incidentally, by such order, the complaint case was allowed in part.
Case of the Complainant, in short, was that when he faced some problem with his car, he took it to the service centre of the OP No. 1 on 23-12-2013. As per the demand of the OP No. 1, he deposited the entire repairing charge of Rs. 35,000/- with it. Despite this, the OP No. 1 took no initiative to repair the car. Therefore, he served legal notice through his Ld. Advocate. As that too did not yield any positive result, the complaint case was filed.
On the other hand, case of the OP No. 1 before the Ld. District Forum was that the Complainant used to send his vehicle for running repairs in usual course, but on one such occasion, on 23-12-2013, the car was sent to the service centre of the OP No. 1 in completely immobilized state/condition for some major repairs, but did not deposit any money towards advance for essential dismantling etc. This OP, on 24-03-2014, raised a service quotation for a sum of Rs. 2,51,051.84. After lot of persuasion, the Complainant deposited Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- on 17-06-2014 and 22-07-2014, respectively. Since the said sum was not adequate, this OP could not carry out the job. Meanwhile, the Complainant approached the OP No. 1 for purchasing the said vehicle and accordingly, an Agreement for Sale was executed in between the parties on 04-12-2014. Later, it came to the knowledge of the OP No. 1 that the said vehicle was hypothecated to a bank. As the Complainant could not furnish necessary NoC from the concerned Bank, the aforesaid Agreement for Sale did not meet its logical end. Further case of this OP was that although it repeatedly urged the Complainant to take back the vehicle, he did not respond positively which made him liable to pay parking charges.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard in the matter and documents on record gone through.
It appears from the photocopy of money receipt bearing no. 1029 dated 22-07-2014 that the Appellant has paid the repairing charge in full. Against such backdrop, no further demand can be made against the Appellant.
Although the Respondent No. 1 heavily banked upon the purported service quotation dated 24-03-2014 for a sum of Rs. 2,51,051.84 to prove that the Appellant did not make full payment, the latter vehemently denied any knowledge about the purported quotation. Significantly, the Respondent No. 1 has not furnished any tangible proof to establish that it ever handed over the said quotation to the Appellant.
Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the Respondent No. 1 indeed issued such quotation and handed over the same to the Appellant, it remains inexplicable, in that case, why did it issue the money receipt dated 22-07-2014 in the first place. There is no reason to believe that the Respondent No. 1 was not aware of the significance of issuance of such money receipt whereby it affirmed receipt of full repairing charge.
On a reference to the Manual Repair Order Form dated 23-12-2013, we find that the same earmarks only few problems in respect of the car. However, in the service quotation, it appears, the Respondent No. 1 mentioned about the necessity of replacement of numerous spare parts. It is true that the Manual Repair Order Form was prepared before dismantling of the car. Yet, the discrepancy cannot be so wide. A cursory eye view of the Manual Repair Order Form does not give any such impression that the car was brought to the service centre in a dilapidated state.
Since the disputed service quotation was issued after 3 months, there was every possibility that some of the spare parts developed damage being kept idle for such long tenure under the open sky in a careless manner. The possibility of theft/misplacing of some parts, as alleged by the Appellant, cannot be ruled out either.
Once the car was brought to the service centre, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to issue a preliminary estimate. However, for some obscure reasons, it did not do so.
All these discernable facts point out gross deficiency on the part of the Respondent No. 1. Above all, since by issuing the money receipt dated 22-07-2014, the Respondent No. 1 acknowledged receipt of full repairing charge, in our considered opinion, it cannot stake any further claim on this score. The Respondent No. 1 cannot shy away from repairing the car properly without asking for any further amount from the Appellant.
The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds.
The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents. The Respondents shall repair the car of the
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
Appellant properly to make it roadworthy in all respects within 40 days from today without seeking any further amount from the Appellant. Considering the negligence on the part of the Appellant, who took nearly six months to make the initial advance, we refrain from awarding any compensation or litigation cost in his favour. In case of non-compliance of this order within the stipulated time, as mentioned hereinabove, the Appellant shall be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law. The impugned order stands modified as above.