Mahadev Singh vs FAUZDAR MOTORS

THIS appeal is by complainant whose complaint (No. 288/2004) has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna vide its order dated 22.9.2005.

RESPONDENT No. 1-M/s. Fauzdar Motors is the authorized service station of respondent No. 2-TELCO manufacturer of Tata vehicles. Complainant had on 29.11.2001 purchased a second-hand Tata Indica car of 1999 model having already run for 25000 kms. Admittedly, he had delivered the said car at respondent No. 1-Service Station in November 2003 for service and repair. RESPONDENT No. 1 carried out repair work and charged Rs. 10,186 towards cost of new parts, Rs. 8,099 as labour charges, besides Rs. 843 for change of engine oil and coolant. The complainant was also required to bring some more parts from the market as the same were not available with respondent No. 1, at the cost of Rs. 16,914. He also paid Rs. 5,000 separately for electrical work. It appears that the vehicle was taken to respondent No. 1 workshop again in the months of March, April and May , 2004. The grievance of the complainant before the Forum below was that despite aforesaid work and payments, the problem of over-heating of the engine persisted and could not be rectified. It is further alleged that on 27.5.2004 when the vehicle was delivered back to the complainant, respondent No. 1 retained with it the audio tape, audio cassettes ten in number and tools, worth Rs. 15,000. The vehicle it is contended, is still suffering with the said problem. The complainant thus alleged deficiency in service on the part of respondents and claimed refund of his amount paid by him to respondent No. 1, return of his said articles and compensation Rs. 50,000. According to the complainant, respondent No. 1 being authorized service agent of respondent No. 2, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate him.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents who filed separate but similar replies denying all the allegations. It was contended that the vehicle was not only old, but used roughly. All best possible repair work was carried out in the vehicle and the same was delivered back to the complainant who also signed the note of satisfaction on the various job cards. As regards the said accessories (audio tape, etc.) it was contended that no such articles were delivered to respondent No. 1 and it was for this reason that while redelivering the vehicle to the complainant a note to that effect was made in the delivery receipt. Respondent No. 2 raised objection as to the tenability of the complaint on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and this respondent and no service as such was hired by the appellant from the respondent.

THE Forum below after taking evidence of the parties and on evaluation thereof dismissed the complaint holding that no deficiency on the part of respondents was established and that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent No. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidentiary material on record.

AT the outset it is noted that in the last job card dated 21.3.2004 the complainant has signed the endorsement of having received the car without making any objection as to the job carried out by respondent No. 1. As already pointed out it was an old car which as on 21.3.2004 had run for about 59290 kms. The car was purchased by the appellant on 29.11.2001 and as per his own showing it had then run only 25,000 kms. So, during the next two and half years he had run the car for nearly 35,000 kms. When we consider the job cards dated 25.1.2004 and 21.3.2004, it will be seen that in the intervening period of two months the car was run for about 1000 kms. In the job card dated 25.1.2004 there was no complaint of over heating. In fact, this complaint of overheating was made for the first time in the job card dated 21.3.2004 only. Under the circumstance it cannot be said that the work done in November 2003 was for rectification of the problem of over heating or that it was an exercise in futile. The appellant himself has filed report of an expert namely Ram Pavitra Pandey. He has assigned more than one causes for over heating of the engine. No such cause could be attributed exclusively to respondent No. 1 and the same could occur during use of the car by the complainant. Certainly no one could give guarantee that the car would not show any such problem even after being attended by a service provider like respondent No. 1. As regards the non-delivery of the accessories, the complainant has heavily relied on a receipt dated 27.5.2004 issued by respondent No. 1 while delivering the car back to the complainant. In this receipt it is stated "we are delivering vehicle without these articles (audio tape, etc.) on 27.5.2004 at 11.30 a.m. However this receipt cannot be construed to mean that the said articles were withheld by respondent No. 1. It is a matter of common knowledge when a vehicle is delivered at a service station such articles are always taken out of the vehicle by the owner, lest they may be misplaced or stolen." The receipt Annexure 9, in our opinion is a clear proof of the fact that the said articles were not in the car when the same was delivered to respondent No. 1 and it is for this reason that while returning the car to the complainant, the aforesaid note was appended in the receipt. In fact the complaint of appellant on this score appeared false.

THE Forum below has dealt with the evidence in detail and assigned proper reasons for dismissing the complaint. Since we generally agree with the findings recorded by the Forum below, we need not to restate the reasons in detail. Suffice is to say that the complainant has failed to establish his case against the respondents. His appeal also thus fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.