First Appeal No. 298 of 2011

9th October, 2013

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. U.B. WAVIKAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. J.M. VYAS

JUDGMENT

MR. DHANRAJ KHAMATKAR, Hon'ble Member :- This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 26/02/2010 passed by the Additional Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.89 of 2005, Mr. Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal Vs. M/s. Auroop Auto Pvt. Ltd. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-

2. Appellant/Complainant - Mr. Vijay Hiralal Jaiswal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant' for the sake of brevity) had sent his vehicle for repairs on 25/02/2002 to the garage of the Respondent/Opponent - M/s. Auroop Auto Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opponent' for the sake of brevity). It is the case of the Complainant that after sending his vehicle for repairs on 25/02/2002, he did not receive any communication from the Opponent regarding repairs of the vehicle and the bill for repairs. On 15/09/2004, the Complainant received from the Opponent a demand bill amounting to Rs.6,671/- towards repairs. It is alleged by the Complainant that after receipt of the bill for repairs, when he contacted the Opponent to permit him to carry out the inspection of the vehicle, the Opponent demanded from him an amount of Rs.1,89,400/- towards parking charges. According to the Complainant, he refused to pay the parking charges. On 04/12/2004, the Complainant had seen the vehicle in the garage of the Opponent and found that the vehicle was in a dilapidated condition. It is the case of the Complainant, after carrying out repairs to the vehicle; the Opponent was legally bound to inform the Complainant that the vehicle is duly repaired and ought to have asked the Complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle. However, the Opponent did not carry such exercise. Alleging this as deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent, the Complainant approached the District Forum and filed a consumer complaint seeking for a direction as against the Opponent to pay him an amount of Rs.3,89,145.65 ps. together with interest thereon besides an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony.

3. Opponent contested the complaint by filing its written version inter-alia contending that the Complainant's son had brought the vehicle to the garage of the Opponent for the repairs and on the very day, the vehicle was repaired by the Opponent. However, it is the contention of the Opponent that nobody turned up for taking the delivery of the repaired vehicle. It is alleged by the Opponent that the vehicle was brought to its garage only for the purposes of parking. When the amount of parking charges went up to Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/-, the Complainant's son had stated that as the Complainant's establishment was raided by the Income-Tax Department, he cannot take the delivery of the vehicle. It is contended that as per the bills for the repairs and the inventory sheet, the parking charges are levied @ Rs.500/- per day. However, the Complainant did not take the delivery of the vehicle and after the year 2004, the Complainant started making correspondence in respect of the vehicle. On these grounds, the Opponent pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed.

4. The District Forum after going through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent, evidence filed by both the parties on affidavits and pleadings of the advocates, came to a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant has preferred this appeal.

5. We heard Adv. Uday B. Wavikar on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant and Adv. J. M. Vyas on behalf of the Respondent/Opponent. We have also perused the record.

6. Admittedly, on 25/02/2002, the Complainant had taken his vehicle bearing RTO registration No.MH-02-Y-7126 for repairs to the garage of the Opponent. The bill for repairs was for an amount of Rs.6,671/-. On perusal of the bill it is seen that it is dated 26/02/2002. However, there is no evidence adduced on the record to show as to when the said bill was given to the Complainant. Correspondence for the vehicle started from 15/09/2004 i.e. approximately after lapse of a period of more than two years after handing over the vehicle for repairs to the Opponent. From the bill for repairs it is clear that the repairs were minor and not major ones. How and why the Complainant maintained silence for such a long period of nearly two years and seven months is not at all satisfactorily explained.

7. Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant tried to argue that the said vehicle was not in the garage of the Opponent but the Complainant had seen his vehicle in Borivali. However, this particular allegation is not reflected in the complaint filed before the District Forum and hence, this submission is advanced only for the sake of arguments.

8. No common man would keep his vehicle in a garage for such a long duration of two years and seven months for carrying out minor repairs and that too, without making an enquiry with the garage as to what has happened to his vehicle.

9. The District Forum after going through the facts has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent. Complainant has miserably failed to prove his bonafide either before the District Forum or even before this Commission. The appeal is misconceived and there is no substance in the appeal. For all these reasons the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

ORDER

Appeal stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.