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



M/s. Singhal Automobiles v/s Chandreshwar Tiwari

    First Appeal No. 38 of 2018

    Decided On, 15 May 2018

    At, Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. VERMA
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. VEENA SHARMA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Rajesh Kumar Devliyal, Mohd. Muzammil, Advocates. For the Respondent: None.



Judgment Text


B.S. Verma, President

1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 27.2.2018 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 78 of 2017.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the respondent - complainant is the registered owner of Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire ZDI bearing registration No. UK04-P-0988. On 19.5.2017, on account of the gear of the vehicle becoming free, the complainant had got all the gears of the vehicle and connected assembly replaced with a new one from the appellant - opposite party, for which he paid sum of Rs. 13,400/- to the appellant. On 20.05.2017, the complainant had gone to Bahraich by the subject car and on 21.05.2017, he went to Deoria from Bahraich and on 23.05.2017, while he was coming back from Deoria to Rudrapur, when the complainant reached near Faizabad, the 5th gear of the vehicle again got slipped and before reaching Lucknow, all the gears of the vehicle got slipped. The car was towed to Lucknow and was got repaired at Bright 4 Wheel Sales Pvt. Ltd. The complainant spent a sum of Rs. 8,800/- in the repair of the vehicle. It was alleged that the appellant had acted negligently and committed deficiency in service by not installing new gears and assembly in the vehicle. The complainant contacted the appellant and asked for refund of the amount paid to the appellant, but to no avail. The complainant sent a notice dated 16.08.2017 through his counsel to the appellant, but the same also went unheard. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The District Forum issued notice to the appellant - opposite party on 11.10.2017, but the same was not received back unserved by the District Forum. Therefore, the District Forum vide order dated 19.12.2017 deemed the service upon the appellant as sufficient and proceeded the consumer complaint ex parte against the appellant.

4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 27.2.2018 and directed the appellant - opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 4,400/- to the respondent - complainant towards the repair charges paid by him to Bright 4 Wheel Sales Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the repair work carried out in the car in question together with interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint, i.e., 09.10.2017 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage itself and gone through the record.

6. So far as the service of summons / notice of the consumer complaint upon the appellant is concerned, from the perusal of the impugned order as well as the order-sheet of the consumer complaint, it is evident that the notice issued by the District Forum to the appellant was not received back unserved and hence the service upon the appellant was held as sufficient. We do not find any fault / error in the procedure so adopted by the District Forum. The address / particulars of the appellant given by the complainant in the consumer complaint are correct and there is no dispute regarding the same. The appellant is an establishment / concern and is not an individual and since the notice sent to the appellant was not received back unserved by the District Forum and hence there was likely presumption that the same was served upon the appellant.

7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle was repaired by the appellant on 19.5.2017 and a sum of Rs. 13,400/- was charged by the appellant towards the repair work carried out in the subject vehicle. Within 4 days' of the repair of the vehicle, the gear assembly of the vehicle went defective and the complainant had to incur certain amount in getting the vehicle repaired. The mere fact that the vehicle went defective within 4 days' of the repair thereof, is sufficient to show that the repair work was not properly carried out by the appellant and there was shortcoming in the repair work carried out by th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e appellant, which resulted in getting the vehicle going out of order within a short span of 4 days' of the repair. 8. The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference by this Commission in its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal being bereft of any merit, warrants dismissal. 9. Appeal is dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
O R