Deepali Kalia
A Consumer Court in Gandhinagar directed a Tata Nano Owner who is also a lawyer by profession to pay Rs 91,000 as parking charges to a workshop.
The decision came because she had not taken delivery of her vehicle for over 910 days following a dispute over the repairs of her car.
Sona Sagar, a practicing lawyer had dropped her Tata Nano car for service at the Harsolia Brothers workshop for service on 7th June 2018.
A week later she was contacted by the workshop who informed her that her vehicle had been repaired and she could pick it up. They charged her Rs 9,900 for repairs.
The lawyer though complained that when she went to pick up her car, she found that a few parts of her vehicle were missing and the music and AC systems were damaged.
Thus, she refused to pick up her car and left it at the workshop.
In 2019, she approached the Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and sued the workshop for deficiency of service seeking deliver of her car in fully repaired condition.
Harsolia brothers, on the other hand claimed that 58 emails were sent to the owner and a notice as well, requesting her to take delivery of the car and make the necessary payments. She refused and did not turn up for more than 2 years.
The workshop submitted that the lawyer should pay parking charges of Rs 100 per day.
In 2020, the lawyer filed another application in the consumer court seeking directions be given to the workshop to deliver her car to her.
Sona Sagar claimed that she contacted the workshop 6 times asking them to make the delivery.
Against this the workshop stated, “ This is a fit case where the complainant being a practicing woman advocate has tried to influence by way of not paying even a pai or pittance and compelled the opponent to repair it without any money which cannot be endured by the opponent.”
The workshop demanded that she must be fined for her behavior in order to set an example among lawyers.
A quorum of the commission’s president DT Soni and member JP Joshi made the following statements after hearing the case, “The lawyer ought to have first paid the repairing charges. She cannot be considered a consumer for not paying the repair charges. The car is lying idle in an unworkable and worsening condition by lapse of time for more than two years. Harsolia Brothers has, in fact, shown good faith and kindness, but it has been its misfortune. In absence of wherewithal of the complainant, opponent is made to wait for the result of this litigation.”
Therefore the court levied a parking charge of Rs 91,000 and additional charge of Rs 3,500.
