COL. L.S. MAKAN vs MODERN AUTOMOBILES

ON a complaint instituted by Col. L.S. Makan for the repair of his Maruti Car No. CH-01-N-4367 which met with an accident on 5.5.1996, the District Forum-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh, dismissed the complaint holding that the vehicle had been sold and the complainant was fully satisfied after the repairs. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been preferred.

BRIEFLY the complainant owned Maruti Car No. CH-01-N-4367 and it stood insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vide Policy No. 2735/96 for a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- which is under-insured as the cost of the vehicle was more. Unfortunately the vehicle met with an accident on 5.5.1996 and it was sent for repairs to the respondent, M/s. Modern Automobiles, Industrial Area, Chandigarh on 10.5.1996. The respondent initially gave the estimate of labour charges to the tune of Rs. 8,350/- but subsequently enhanced it to Rs. 17,000/- after opening of the vehicle. However the matter was settled with the Insurance Company at Rs. 12,350/-. Since the appellant was injured in this accident, he remained admitted in the hospital for two months. During this period he made several requests to the respondent to repair his car but of no avail. On 24th August, 1996 the complainant was asked to collect his car after carrying out the repairs by the respondent. As alleged in the complaint, the repairs were not to the satisfaction of the appellant and this was acknowledged by the respondent in his letter dated 2.9.1996. The appellant took his car again to the workshop of the respondent on 23.9.1996 but the respondent refused to carry out the repairs for the reason of rush of work even after having prepared the job card. The main defects noted in the job car were; leakage of the engine oil, defect in left hand axle boot, blower switch and rattling in front door. As per the appellant, the car remained with the respondent for more than four months and during this period its battery was replaced. The respondent in its reply has not denied the initial estimated of Rs. 8,350/- enhanced to Rs. 17,000/- and settled of Rs. 12,350/- as labour charges. But it contended that the repair work was of large magnitude and some of the parts for repair were to be brought from the manufacturing Company, i.e. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon because they were not readily available and they were specifilly requisitioned from them. The vehicle was delivered to the appellant when he was fully satisfied. Even the old battery was replaced with a new one of 1996 model.

After hearing the appellant in person and the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is a fact that the vehicle had been under-insured. The complainant had undergone mental agony and inconvenience at the time he was admitted in the hospital. The respondent should not have undertaken the repairs if it was of that magnitude and should have refused and asked the complainant to get re-survey done for the total loss of the vehicle. Once the repair has been done at the agreed terms and conditions, it was the duty of the respondent to fully satisfy the appellant. The deficiency on the part of the respondent is well-established.

THE conclusion is that the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental agony and inconvenience especially when he was admitted in the hospital and also the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop a number of times without satisfactory results. Thus the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of. Appeal partly allowed.