PREM KUMAR JAGGI vs PREET MOTORS

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a Montana Diesel Car'' from M/s. Preet Motors, New Delhi. It is pleaded that he was entitled to three free services of the car at 1500 Kms. 4000 Kms, and 8000 Kms.

IT is further pleaded that the complainant get the first service of the Car done as prescribed. When he sent the car for 2nd and 3rd service, M/s. Preet Motors avoided to do the same on one excuse or the other. With the result that the car completed 8000 Kms. It is averred that the engine of the car get choked at 13000 kms. The chocking took place as the oil filter of the engine had not been changed, which should have been done. He got the car repaired from M/s. Preet Motors and paid an amount of Rs. 13,457/- as repair and replacement charges to them. In addition to that he had to spend heavy amount on conveyance. Consequently, he has prayed that the respondent be directed to take back the car and give him a new car and also to pay the conveyance charges spent by him.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent. It has been pleaded by them that the complainant was an educated person and understood as to what was to be done at the time of service. He sent his car for getting 3 free services and the same were done by M/s. Preet Motors, the respondent. However, the coupons for free service were not handed over by the complainant to the Preet Motors respondent while taking the delivery of the car after service. The complainant was advised to change the oil filter by the respondent, but he did not agree to that for the reason that he was required to pay the cost of the oil filter. It is further pleaded that there was no fault on the part of the respondents. The question that arises for determination is as to whose duty it was to change the oil filter. The complainant has argued that it was the duty of the respondents to have changed the oil filter at the 3rd service and sent the bill of the same to him. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that they suggested to the complainant that the oil filter be got changed, but he did not agree.

WE have duly considered the matter. The respondents have produced the job card, in which the repairs and replacements made in the car have been entered. The respondents have got expertise and they very well knew that if the oil filter was not got changed by the complainant, it was possible that the engine of the car would seize. In this situation it was their duty to have given a note on the job card that the complainant refused to get the oil filter changed. They should have also produced the affidavit of the person, who suggested to the complainant that he should get the oil filter changed. Therefore, this version of the respondent appears to be an after thought and cannot be accepted. The complainant is an educated person and he knew that the filter was to be got changed at the time of third service. It was therefore, his duty as well to have asked the respondent to change the filter. In the aforesaid circumstances both the parties are equally negligent, due to which the engine of the car seized. Therefore, both of them are equally liable to bear the loss.

THERE is no complaint regarding other defects in the car. It has been shown by the respondents that the car had been sent for free services at the appropriate times and those had been done by the Preet Motors respondent. The complainant is, therefore, not entitled to replacement of the car. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the complaint and direct Preet Motors respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 6,725/- to the complainant within a period of 3 months with interest @ 16% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment. No order as to costs. Complaint partly allowed.