BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

Dated this the 17^th December 2016

PRESENT

SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HONBLE PRESIDENT

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HONBLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.77/2012

(Admitted on 27.02.2012)

Mrs. Vidya Yogesh,

 W/o Yogesh Naik,

Aged 34 years,

R/at Flat No:403,

Sunview Apartments,

Nanthoor, Bejai,

Mangalore  560 004

D.K. District, State of Karnataka

                                                                            ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri DRA)

VERSUS

1. Kanchana Automobiles Pvt., Ltd.,

    Rep By its Prop: Prasad Kanchana,

    NH:48, Alape, Padil,

    Mangalore  575007.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd,

    Rep by its: Managing Director

    Marketing & Sales Headquarters

    5^th and 6^th Floor,

    Corportate One (Baani Building)

    Plot No.5, Commercial Centre,

    Jasola, New Delhi  110076.

                                                                       …..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No. 1  : Sri.MSKP)

(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No. 2 : Sri.DALA)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE MEMBER

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain relief opposite parties to papy a sum of Rs.5,048/ the cost of the new bumper, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/ from 22.12.2011 till receiving the vehicle after replacement for the loss suffered to the complainant, a sum of Rs.25,000/ as compensation and cost of litigation.

 2.    In support of the above complainant Mrs. Vidya Yogesh affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C10 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Priya Darshan Kumar (Rw1) Assistant Manager, Legal and Secretarial with Hyundai Motor also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complaint and the version perused. The dispute in precise is the complainant had given his vehicle for service with the Opposite party no 1on home pick up delivery basis and the Opposite party  picked the vehicle up to the Opposite party service center. While picking up on road the vehicle come in touch with another vehicle and damaged in the bumper. The Opposite party is not replacing the bumper which was damaged because of his negligence and hence liable of deficiency in service. The Opposite party contends while admitting the damage of the vehicle in their custody but submits the damage is a small dent and the same has been repaired on their own cost. Hence the Opposite parties are not liable for any deficiency in service. These being the facts of dispute in resolving this issue we consider the following

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

     On perusal of the evidence and verifying the documents produced, the admitted facts are, the vehicle given for service to opposite party no 1 on pick up delivery basis on 22.12.2011 and the Opposite party no 2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle, after the opposite party no 1 picked up the vehicle the vehicle met with an accident by coming into collusion with some other vehicle and damaged. The said damage was repaired by the Opposite party no 1 and the vehicle was delivered to the complaint on 03.01.2012.the denial part is the Opposite party no 1 denies the extensive damage to the vehicle and their liability in deficiency in service since they have repaired damage with free of cost. On balancing the admission and denials we are of opinion that the following points may be considered in resolving this dispute.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the    Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for?
4. What order?

     On taking into consideration the evidences and produced documents after hearing the rival parties we adjudicate the point of consideration as under:

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.
3. In the affirmative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The opposite party no 1 is the authorized  service center of the opposite party no 2 the manufacturer of the complainant s vehicle and the complainant has given her vehicle with opposite party no 1 for periodical service. This fact is admitted by the Opposite party no 1 and there established the consumer and service provider relation between the complainant and the Opposite parties hence the point no 1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 2: The pivot of dispute is the Opposite parties have picked up the vehicle of the complainant for service and there is duty cost upon the opposite party no 1 to redeliver the vehicle to the satisfaction or the customer after servicing. As per facts available the vehicle met with an accident after the opposite party no 1 picked up the vehicle for service and damage caused. The complainant claim is the bumper substantially damaged and the Opposite party has to replace the bumber. The Opposite party contends the damage is a small dent and the same has been repaired. Since it is a small dent the Opposite party no 1 is not liable to replace the bumper. From the Opposite party no 1 version and affidavit evidence it is not pleaded that the complainant being informed about the accident and the nature of damage caused. Only the Opposite party no 1 answered in interrogatories that they have informed the complainant s husband and taken permission to repair it which go low profile as secondary. As per complainant pleading the accident come to the knowledge of the complainant only when the complainant s husband visited the opposite party no 1 service center on 27.12.2011. It is clear the complainant kept away from the knowledge of the accident and the impact of the accident. Whatever the opposite party no 1 said about the impact of accident is unilateral and the Opposite  party no not produced any piece of evidence to show the impact of accident. According to complainant the impact is high and her husband has visited the opposite party no 1 service center and has seen the vehicle. The visit of the complainant’s husband is not in dispute. It was the duty of the opposite party no 1 to inform immediately after accident and taken permission to either repair or replace after convincing the condition and impact of accident. The opposite party no 1 failed in his duty and kept the car for so many days in getting it patch worked in absence of the complainant and hoodwink the customer as if accident not happened and the vehicle not damaged. which we term it as unfair trade practice. It is also deficiency in service as the customer trust the opposite party no 1 and hand over the vehicle for servicing.  As we stated earlier it was the duty of the Opposite party to hand over the vehicle given for servicing to the satisfaction of the complainant but in the instant case the complainant is not satisfied with the work done. The record on file also shows that the complainant had got the bumper replaced with other service center of the opposite party no 2 presumably with dissatisfaction of the opposite party no 1 work in repairing the bumper on accidental damage.

      2.  Even if take it for  granted the opposite party no 1 contention that the complainant’s husband informed that he will be coming to collect the vehicle on 27.11.2011(not documented or admitted), the vehicle delivered on 03.01.2012 almost 7 days delay which prompt us to presume the damage is prominent and taken that much days for repair. This much is enough to hold the opposite party no 1 liable for deficiency in service and guilty of unfair trade practice and liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the answer to point no 2 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 3:  The Opposite party no 1 held liable for deficiency is in service and unfair trade practice by not delivering the vehicle to the satisfaction of the complainant and tried to repair the damage caused to the vehicle in the back of complainant without informing him. The complainant had produced the EX C7 to C9 for the replacement of the bumper done with other authorized service center of the opposite party no 2 an amount of  Rs 5048/ for which the complainant is entitled with an interest of 10% per annum from 05.01.2012 the date of replacement of bumper and paid till the date of payment. As there is negligence in handling the vehicle as well as in repairing the damaged bumper coupled with the unfair trade practice by the Opposite party we are of the opinion the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs 15000/ as compensation towards damage and the mental agony and hardship and an amount of Rs  6000/ towards litigation expenses. The opposite party no 2 is not having any part in the  dispute and not liable for any deficiency in service is entitled to be discharged from liability.

POINT NO 4: In the result of above discussion and the adjudication of points we pass the following

ORDER

     The complainant is allowed. The opposite party no 1 shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs  5048/ (Rupees Five thousand Forty Eight only) with an interest of 10% per annum from the date of 05.01.2012 till the date of payment and an amount of Rs 15000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and Rs  6000/ (Rupees Six thousand only) towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order received.        

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

      (Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by member revised and    pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th December 2016)

           MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

      (SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR)       (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum         D.K. District Consumer Forum

   Additional Bench, Mangalore            Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mrs. Vidya Yogesh

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

ExC1: Office copy of the legal notice dated 03.01.2012

ExC2: Reply Notice dated 19.01.2012                  

ExC3: Postal Receipts and Acknowledgement                   

Ex.C4: Police Complaint and endorsement

Ex.C5: Photographs (3 in Nos)

Ex.C6: Letter Dated 03.01.2012 issued by O.P

Ex.C7: Repair order issued by Advaith Motors

Ex.C8: Bill issued by Advaith Motors

Ex.C9: Payment receipt

Ex.C10: Bank Statement                             

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mr. Priya Darshan Kumar (Rw1) Assistant Manager, Legal  and Secretarial with Hyundai Motor

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Nil 

Dated:  17.12.2016                                           MEMBER