THAKUR LOKPAL SINGH vs KAMAL KHAN

The complainant, Shri Thakur Lokpal Singh, got an old Maruti 800 car from his relative, who resides in Gujarat. Since the car was old, some repairs, denting, painting and engine work were required. He approached Mr. Kamal Khan/OP, the proprietor of Kamal Goodluck Dehli Workshop at Ratlam, who assured to do the necessary work for the said car and return the same within two months. The complainant paid Rs.25,000/- as advance on 5.4.2007 and it was an oral agreement as per custom. The OP did not repair the car within two months. It was delayed by 6-7 months but still the car was handed over to the complainant in unrepaired condition. At the time of delivery, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- extra towards the prices of parts. Thereafter, the complainant got repaired his car from Jaipur Maruti Workshop Jaora by paying a further sum of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereafter, due to alleged carelessness and unsatisfactory work done by the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum Ratlam.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Subsequently, the first appeal was preferred by the complainant before the State Commission, Bhopal. The State Commission observed lack of service and unnecessary delay in the delivery of car and partly allowed the appeal by awarding Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

Aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition for enhancement of compensation.

At the admission stage, we have heard Mr. Brajesh S. Vyas, learned counsel for the complainant. He vehemently argued that the OP had kept the car in his workshop for eight months under pretext of repair. The bills paid by the complainant were not properly issued by OP. The complainant had to spend extra Rs.15,000/- again for the repair work at Jaora. The State Commission failed to observe bills properly and awarded meagre compensation.

We have perused the impugned order and the evidence on record. The State Commission categorically observed as under:- "3. The respondent-opposite party denied the averments made by the complainant. It was stated that the complainant did not give Rs.25,000/- to the respondent but only Rs.20,000/- in instalments. The work was done according to the instructions of the complainant. The documents relied upon by the appellant-complainant are fabricated and the bill produced by the appellant is not the bill issued by him. After hearing the parties and perusing the record the District Forum dismissed the case. 4. The District Forum held that the complainant has averred that on 5.4.2007 it was promised that the vehicle will be returned after repairs within two months but the vehicle was returned after six or seven months. The complaint has been filed after inordinate delay of 11 months, which creates serious doubt on the case of the appellant."

The State Commission categorically observed that the OP had returned the vehicle late, therefore, complainant was compensated by award of Rs. 5,000/-. In our view, it was just and proper compensation. The complainant failed to produce cogent evidence to show that he had made extra payments of Rs.15,000/- towards extra repairs at Jaora. Thus, we do not find any reason to enhance the compensation to him. On the basis of foregoing discussion, this revision petition lacks merit, accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.