w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s J S Automobiles v/s Harvinder Singh Chauhan

    First Appeal No. 954 of 2012

    Decided On, 22 April 2016

    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi


    For the Appearing Parties: -----.

Judgment Text

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1. Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 23.07.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum (North-West District) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Vide impugned orders, following directions were passed against the appellant herein.

a. The OP shall pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant against the purchase price of Rs. 58,451/- of the motor cycle and shall also pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment cause to the complainant which will include cost of litigation also.

b. It is made clear that if at any point of time the motor cycle bearing registration No. DL-8S-AA-3861 is traced the same shall be transferred in the name of OP and complainant shall complete all the formalities so that motor cycle is transferred in the name of the OP.

2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the complaint.

3. Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. Harvinder Singh Chauhan had purchased Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle from the OP on 13.09.2015 for an amount of Rs. 58,451/-. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the complainant in cash and the amount of Rs. 28,280/- was financed by HDFC Bank Ltd. On 04.09.2006, the complainant approached the OP for routine service and handed over the motor cycle to the executive of OP for servicing. Gate slip bearing No. 371232 with Job Card No. 41 was issued. Date 05.09.2006 was indicated as the date of delivery. Complainant’s contention is that due to some personal difficulty he could not collect his motor cycle on 05.09.2006. On his visit to the OP on 07.09.2006, delivery was refused stating that the vehicle had been misplaced from the service station of the OP. Complainant lodged an FIR No. 566/06 u/s 406 IPC on 13.09.2006 with Police Station Narela Delhi. Complainant thereafter filed the present complaint.

4. Defence raised by the OP was that on 05.09.2006 its supervisor named Sh. Rakesh took the motor cycle in question for a test drive after service. Sh. Rakesh parked the motor cycle near the gate of the workshop. Sh. Rakesh searched the motor cycle and found the same missing. Next contention of the OP is that the complainant might have himself taken the vehicle on 05.09.2006 as he was carrying duplicate key with him. OP also raised an objection that the complainant could recover the price of the vehicle from the insurance company.

5. Ld. Trial Forum observed that the defence raised by the OP suffers from a serious contradiction. OP in its written version stated that it had come to know of the factum of the theft of the vehicle on 05.09.2006 itself. On the contrary, supervisor of the OP named Sh. Rakesh stated that they started searching the vehicle only on 05.09.2006 when the complainant came to them. Ld. Trial Forum held that there was deficiency on the part of the OP.

6. An objection was raised by the OP in the trial forum stating that the service in question of the motor cycle was a free service. Ld. trial forum observed that after the service the complainant was required to pay some money to the OP.

7. In the case of B.Datta, Senior Advocate Vs. Management of State Owned Ashoka Hotel & Anr., IV (2009) CPJ 191 (NC), it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the parking charges were included in the amount paid for dinner by the consumer in the said case. On the same analogy, service charges for the first free service are included in the price of the motor cycle. Contention thus raised by the OP is devoid of merits. Coming to the next contention of the OP that the complainant was at liberty to get the price of the vehicle from the insurance company is again devoid of merits as it is not a case of loss of vehicle but a case of misappropria

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

tion of motorcycle by the service provider and a consequent ‘deficiency in service’. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid or merits. The same is dismissed. 9. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records. 10. FDR, if any, be released as per rules.