M/S. Ekansh Motors Pvt. Ltd vs Narender Kumar

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner M/s.Ekansh Motors Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 07.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.584 of 2015.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent got his car serviced from the petitioner and paid Rs.15,000/- for the service. On the third day of service, the family of respondent was going on road and the car suddenly stopped and the car was taken to the nearby repair shop. It was found that the gear box oil had leaked and there was sound in the gear box. The respondent spent about Rs.45,000/- in repairing the car. The complaint was lodged by the respondent stating that due to deficient and superficial service of the car, it broke down on the road and the complainant had to suffer lot of mental agony and had to spend amount of Rs.45,000/- to get the car repaired. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/petitioner on the ground that it was not certain as to what resulted in leakage of gear box oil and it cannot be said certainly that the gear box oil leakage was due to any deficiency in the service of the car. However, the District Forum accepted the contentions of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 08.06.2015

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal being No.584 of 2015 before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted appeal and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.29,958/- along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation in addition to Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

Hence the present revision petition.

Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and examined the material on record. Both the parties reiterated their stand taken in the pleadings. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is no evidence that the gear box oil leaked out due to any shortcoming in servicing of the car. The break down of the car or the leakage of gear box oil may have been on account of some other factor which has not been disclosed by the complainant. It is true that there may not be any direct evidence to support the contentions of the complainant that there was shortcoming in the servicing of the car which led to leakage of gear box oil and sudden break down of the car on third day from the date of service, but it cannot be denied that the car was serviced two days before on payment of Rs.15,000/- and the car suffered severe break down due to leakage of gear box oil and the complainant had to spend more money. In these circumstances, the presumption would be that there was some lacuna in the servicing of the car, which led to the sudden break down of the car. The State Commission has observed the following:-

"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From its perusal, the following salient facts stands fully established:-

i) When the complainant got the car serviced on 01.02.2014, the quality of service was wholly deficient and superficial due to which the car stopped on the very next day on 02.02.2014.

ii) On getting the car serviced on 05.02.2014, the mechanic of the M/s. Karnal Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kurukshetra, repaired the car and found "that vehicle reported in workshop for abnormal sound from gear box, check and found gear oil level plug missing and all gear box leaked and gar box assvi" and,

iii) this report clearly proves that the leakage of the gear oil was due to missing of the plug, which had neither been detected on 01.02.2014, when OP serviced the car nor any repairs to that effect given at the time of service.Therefore, the break down of the car on 02.02.2014 due to this deficiency in service, for which the complainant is legally entitled to be compensated by the OP."

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the incident happened on the third day of the date of service, hence no other reason can be attributed to the leakage of gear box oil or the sudden break down of the car. The State Commission has rightly accepted the appeal of the complainant and has ordered reasonable compensation.

I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and have examined the record.

From the above, it is clear that the fact of car being serviced superficially is fully established. The opposite party/petitioner has not put forward any evidence that the vehicle got damaged or suddenly broke down due to some other factor. Hence, based on the established fact of superficial service of the car, the State Commission has ordered opposite party to pay Rs.29,958/- along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint. It is also a fact that there is no report on the record to prove that break down occurred due to deficiency in servicing of the car though breakdown of the car and leakage of gear box oil seem to be due to defect in servicing of the car because everything is supposed to be set right in the servicing. The matter is to be decided on whatever evidence is available on the file and therefore, in my view, the ends of justice would meet, if the servicing charges of Rs.15,000/- are refunded by the petitioner/opposite party along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realisation in addition to the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the State Commission. Clearly the interest is also awarded as compensation, so there is no justification of ordering separate compensation of Rs.10,000/- in the present case. Accordingly, this part of the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.1754 of 2017 is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission dated 07.03.2015 is modified to the extent that the petitioner/opposite party shall be liable to pay Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) along with 9% p.a. interest on this amount from the date of the complaint till actual payment. The order of the State Commission with regard to compensation of Rs.10,000/- is set aside. However, the amount of litigation cost of Rs.5000/- is maintained. This order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt/service of this order.