Consumer Court orders Tata Nano owner to pay Rs. 91000 in long-term parking fees to workshop

saikarthik · 29th January 2021, 14:01

In a weird and surprising consumer court ruling, the complainant had to cough up Rs. 91000 as penalty in parking charges. It is good to observe that the court has penalized the consumer for her misdeeds (as alleged by the other party - trying to influence being an attorney).

It is however not clear and rather confusing when the Court considered her as non-consumer as she failed to pay for the defective repair/service.

https://www.rushlane.com/tata-nano-p...-12391991.html

Quote:

The issue started when Sona Sagar left her Tata Nano for repairs at Harsolai Brothers workshop on 7th June 2019. Following repairs, she was informed by the workshop to come and pick up the Tata Nano and was handed over a bill of Rs.9.900. However, as the attorney entered the vehicle she noted some missing parts and complained that the air conditioning and music system were damaged. She refused to pay the bill and got out of the Nano.

The Nano continued to be parked at the repair workshop. Later in 2019, Sona Sagar approached the Consumer Dispute Settlement Commission in Gandhinagar District. She filed a case against Harsolai Bothers accusing them of lack of service and demanded that her Nano be returned to her in a repaired condition with no missing parts.

The service center, on their part, complained that a total of 58 mails were sent to the attorney asking her to collect her vehicle after paying the necessary repair charges. 2 years had passed and the attorney failed to do the needful. Since the car was lying in the repair garage for 910 days, a parking fee at the rate of Rs.100 per day has been levied amounting to Rs.91,000. In 2020, a further motion was filed by the Attorney stating that she had given the garage instructions on delivery. She also claimed to have called up the garage on 6 occasions but the car was not delivered. The garage authorities claimed that the complainant, who is a practicing attorney tried to influence them, not pay a penny in terms of repair cost and at the same time demand delivery of her vehicle.

Quote:

Consumer Court Ruling:
On hearing the complaint, the bench headed by Commission President DT Soni and Member JP Joshi opined that the complainant should have paid repair costs at that time. Failure to do so has labelled her a non-consumer and hence is not liable to any compensation. In fact, failure to pay and pick up her Tata Nano after several reminder has seen further depreciation of the vehicle. Hence the court has ruled that the complainant is at fault and will have to pay the original cost of repairs, parking fee for 910 days at Rs.100 per day relating to Rs.91,000 and in addition the commission has levied a charge of Rs.3,500.

The ruling may be correct, but what I fail to understand is that if a service is not done properly, should we still pay to be labelled as a consumer?

Source: Rushlane.com

RedTerrano · 29th January 2021, 15:27

91,000 parking charges for a 1,00,000 (advertised) car! Simply boggles the mind!

Quote:

Originally Posted by saikarthik

The ruling may be correct, but what I fail to understand is that if a service is not done properly, should we still pay to be labelled as a consumer?

Even I was wondering about that. I strongly suspect the news item has not covered the full story for whatever reason.

gkveda · 29th January 2021, 15:36

If the owner has clear evidence to prove that the services were not done to satisfaction and parts were missing during delivery due to which she did not take the delivery of the car, then, the case would be in favour of owner.

At the same time, if service center has evidence to show that the car was repaired and parts were replaced, communicated to owner post which owner didn't pick up the car, then, case would definitely be in favour of service center.

Without data on the above points, it would be tough to decide who is right. And since the source says court has decided to fine the owner, it means that service center has included missing parts and communicated to owner to pickup but owner has not picked up.

Nonetheless, if missing parts is really a fact, it is shame on service center to steal the parts in a car that is in for servicing.

museycal · 29th January 2021, 16:11

Thanks for sharing. Interesting case. Had to look up more on it.

The full judgement of the case is attached here. Made for an interesting reading. For anyone interested, the case no. CC/19/1262 at Gandhinagar District Forum.

From the judgement, the data on record can be seen and it seems that the lawyer was at more fault here. The workshop did share the estimated charges on job card AFTER the initial inspection and before repairs were carried out with lawyer's cognizance.

The judgement is more damning stressing that the complainant, being a lawyer herself, has tried to manipulate the case while defaulting on her obligations as a consumer.

Ragavsr · 29th January 2021, 16:21

This is a good judgement and a signal to all the cops and lawyers trying to arm twist businesses and get things done without paying for it. The menace has reached alarming proportions with our incapable law enforcement and judiciary being the main reason behind it.

Once the parts had been fixed , she should have paid and taken delivery of the car. Also, her initial claim of certain parts missing might itself not been true.

Dealerships usually give many reminders to pay the bill or take out the car if they don't want it fixed in the dealership and only after some time they start applying parking charges to the bill. A friend's Brio was rotting in the Dealership awaiting engine replacement and only after the 30th day the dealership sent an ultimatum to decide to get the work done or remove the car.

vishwasvr · 9th February 2021, 10:21

I have experienced first hand how some customers use workshops as parking spots for weeks to months on end. They shamelessly say "Oh please inspect just from outside and don't remove anything and let me know approx cost and time, I'm not in a hurry". And when the garage sends the estimates, the customer says oh I'm travelling right now, I'll be back at the end of this month. A few friends of mine who run garages now ask for a nominal fee just to inspect, primarily to test if this customer is genuinely in need of work or looking to park his/her car for cheap. This weeds out the wanna be scamsters.

29th January 2021, 15:36	#3
gkveda Senior - BHPian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,154 Thanked: 4,763 Times	re: Consumer Court orders Tata Nano owner to pay Rs. 91000 in long-term parking fees to workshop If the owner has clear evidence to prove that the services were not done to satisfaction and parts were missing during delivery due to which she did not take the delivery of the car, then, the case would be in favour of owner. At the same time, if service center has evidence to show that the car was repaired and parts were replaced, communicated to owner post which owner didn't pick up the car, then, case would definitely be in favour of service center. Without data on the above points, it would be tough to decide who is right. And since the source says court has decided to fine the owner, it means that service center has included missing parts and communicated to owner to pickup but owner has not picked up. Nonetheless, if missing parts is really a fact, it is shame on service center to steal the parts in a car that is in for servicing. Last edited by gkveda : 29th January 2021 at 15:41.
	(4) Thanks

29th January 2021, 16:21	#5
Ragavsr BHPian Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Chennai Posts: 502 Thanked: 1,367 Times Infractions: 0/1 (5)	re: Consumer Court orders Tata Nano owner to pay Rs. 91000 in long-term parking fees to workshop This is a good judgement and a signal to all the cops and lawyers trying to arm twist businesses and get things done without paying for it. The menace has reached alarming proportions with our incapable law enforcement and judiciary being the main reason behind it. Once the parts had been fixed , she should have paid and taken delivery of the car. Also, her initial claim of certain parts missing might itself not been true. Dealerships usually give many reminders to pay the bill or take out the car if they don't want it fixed in the dealership and only after some time they start applying parking charges to the bill. A friend's Brio was rotting in the Dealership awaiting engine replacement and only after the 30th day the dealership sent an ultimatum to decide to get the work done or remove the car. Last edited by Ragavsr : 29th January 2021 at 16:23.
	(15) Thanks

9th February 2021, 10:21	#6
vishwasvr BHPian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bangalore Posts: 245 Thanked: 622 Times	Re: Consumer Court orders Tata Nano owner to pay Rs. 91000 in long-term parking fees to workshop I have experienced first hand how some customers use workshops as parking spots for weeks to months on end. They shamelessly say "Oh please inspect just from outside and don't remove anything and let me know approx cost and time, I'm not in a hurry". And when the garage sends the estimates, the customer says oh I'm travelling right now, I'll be back at the end of this month. A few friends of mine who run garages now ask for a nominal fee just to inspect, primarily to test if this customer is genuinely in need of work or looking to park his/her car for cheap. This weeds out the wanna be scamsters.
	(1) Thanks