Haryana State Commission Holds Auto Modification Workshop Liable For Unsatisfactory Modification Work, Overcharging
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Mr Justice TPS Mann (President), Mr S.P. Sood (Judicial Member) and Mrs Manjula(Member) held Amit Auto Works, Jind District liable for failure to provide satisfactory modification services for the Complainant's auto. Amit Auto Works also excessively charged the Complainant and retained the auto's original...
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Mr Justice TPS Mann (President), Mr S.P. Sood (Judicial Member) and Mrs Manjula(Member) held Amit Auto Works, Jind District liable for failure to provide satisfactory modification services for the Complainant's auto. Amit Auto Works also excessively charged the Complainant and retained the auto's original steel sheet.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant was the registered owner of an auto-rickshaw, which he used to earn his livelihood. He had no other source of income. The Complainant wanted to modify his auto rickshaw to make it suitable for transporting students to and from school. Upon inquiry, he discovered that Amit Auto Works (“Amit Auto”) ran a workshop in Jind that performed such modifications. The Complainant took his vehicle to Amit Auto's workshop in May 2021 and inquired about the modification work. Amit Auto agreed to undertake the modifications, which included using heavy steel sheets, applying yellow paint, installing flexible windows, adding two windows on the rear portion, affixing three fans and lights, adding two windows on the front portion, and installing a signal. Amit Auto demanded Rs. 38,000/- for the work, and the Complainant agreed.
Amit Auto asked the Complainant to return after 15 days to collect the modified auto rickshaw. However, when the Complainant visited the workshop after 15 days, the work was not completed, and Amit Auto requested more time. This pattern continued for several visits, and the Complainant had to make about 15 trips to the workshop. Finally, on November 10, 2021, the Complainant, along with his friend, visited Amit Auto, who then delivered the auto-rickshaw. However, the modifications were not done as per the Complainant's specifications. Amit Auto charged Rs. 38,000/- for the said modifications.
The Complainant found that Amit Auto used very light and inferior quality sheets instead of heavy steel sheets, applied black paint instead of yellow, used curtains instead of flexible windows, affixed a "daala" instead of two rear windows, and did not install any fans, lights, or front windows. Amit Auto also did not affix any signal. The Complainant protested, but Amit Auto did not address his concerns and instead threatened him in his friend's presence.
The Complainant stated that due to the six-month delay, he could not run his auto rickshaw or earn any income. He had to transfer his work of transporting school children to another driver, resulting in a loss of income amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Additionally, Amit Auto did not return the original steel sheet, which weighed about 2.50 quintals and was worth Rs. 8,500/- as scrap at Rs. 34/- per kg. After inspecting the modifications, mechanic Kuldeep Singh estimated the cost at Rs. 26,000/-, indicating that Amit Auto had overcharged by Rs. 12,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa, Haryana (“District Commission”).
Amit Auto claimed that it did not undertake the said modification work, did not demand Rs. 38,000/- and did not issue any bill. It denied any modifications or involvement in the alleged changes to the auto rickshaw, arguing that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on its part.
The District Commission allowed the complainant and ordered Amit Auto to refund Rs. 20,500/- to the Complainant along with 6% interest and pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- for litigation costs. Dissatisfied by the decision, Amit Auto filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (“State Commission”).
Observations by the Commission:
The State Commission observed that the Complainant had taken his auto rickshaw to Amit Auto for modifications. Despite charging Rs. 38,000/-, Amit Auto performed substandard work by using light and inferior quality materials instead of heavy steel, applying black paint instead of yellow, using curtains instead of flexible windows, and failing to install fans, lights, and signals as requested. The Complainant's argument that Amit Auto had not met his expectations was accepted.
The State Commission noted that the Complainant provided a cash credit memo from Amit Auto, bearing its signature and confirming the transaction. Further, it was observed that the District Commission had established that Amit Auto charged Rs. 38,000/- for the modification work, retained the auto rickshaw for about six months, and caused the Complainant to suffer a loss of income. Additionally, the report from mechanic Kuldeep Singh indicated that the actual cost of the modifications, including labour, was Rs. 26,000/-. This proved that Amit Auto overcharged the Complainant by Rs. 12,000/- and kept scrap steel worth Rs. 8,500/-.
The State Commission held that Amit Auto should have completed the modifications within the agreed timeframe and recognized that the Complainant suffered financial and mental losses due to Amit Auto's unprofessional and inadequate work. The State Commission found no grounds to interfere with the District Commission's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Amit Auto Works vs Mewa Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1429 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Shri Vikas Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Respondent-in-person
Date of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024