BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 31st MARCH 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 220/2013
(Admitted on 17.08.2013)
Technotherma Furnaces,
Through its Partner,
Mr. N. Vivek Shetty, having
Their office at 206, Hall Mark,
Commercial complex,
LBS Marg,
Mulund (west)
Mumbai 400082 …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri P.P Hegde)
VERSUS
- Renault (India) Ltd.,
Through its showroom,
Gennext Motors Ltd.,
Having its address at G-1,
Durolite House,
CTS No. 647/648, Opp: Laxmi
Industrial Estate, Near Kuber,
Complex, New Link Road,
Andheri (w) Mumbai-400053.
- T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.,
Div Dev Building, Opp: Karavali,
College, Kottara Chowki,
Mangalore 575 013. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES.
(Advocate for opposite party No. 1: Sri Krishna Prasad M.S.)
(Advocate for opposite party No. 2: Sri K. Premanath)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant stated that complainant is a partnership firm and carrying on business. The complainant has purchased Renault Car bearing registration No. MH 3 BE 6262. The said car is insured with New India Insurance Company. Ltd., when the complainant was moving from Mumbai to Mangalore met with an accident on 30.04.2013. Thereafter immediately informed to Insurance company and the insurance company issued repair order dated 30.04.2013. It is stated that the complainant was following with Opposite Party No. 2 for delivery of Car but till now the car is not delivered. It is stated that the complainant had sent many emails in-spite of that they have not delivered the car. Only after filing the complainant the car has been delivered, being of non-delivery of vehicle they suffered huge loss till 21st August 2013 and hence the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsels filed versions. The Opposite Party No. 1 stated that the time required for any repairs depend upon extent of damage caused, the availability of the parts, and the condition of the vehicle etc., The Opposite Party No. 2 placed orders for spare parts on 4/5.2013 with this opposite party. This opposite party could not supply the spare parts immediately as there was a maser fire accident in their warehouse at Chennia on 9.5.2013 and stocks was destroyed. Hence the spare parts ordered by the opposite party No. 2 could not be sent immediately. There is no deficiency and sought for dismissal of complaint.
Opposite Party No. 2 stated that the vehicle entrusted to second Opposite Party for repair. This Opposite Party had informed the complainant that the spare parts have to be supplied by Opposite Party No. 1 from Mumbai, on receipt of parts from Opposite Party No. 1 repaired the vehicle and delivered it to complainant. There is no delay and also there is no deficiency and sought for dismissal of complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mr. N. Viveka Shetty (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C8. One Prabhu Krishna (RW-1) i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. EX-R-1 to R-7 were marked for the Opposite Party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 not led any evidence.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) TO (iii) :
The facts which are admitted is that the complainant had purchased the car and met with an accident on 30.04.2013 and thereafter the complainant kept the car for repair on 30.04.2013 in Opposite Party No. 2’s workshop.
The allegations of the complainant is that in-spite of requesting with Opposite Party No. 2 for repair and delivery the Car but every time the Opposite Party No. 2 was not delivered on time hence complaint.
The Opposite Party No. 2 on the contrary contended that the vehicle was entrusted for repair and the spare parts have to be supplied by Opposite Party No. 1 from Mumbai and Opposite Party No. 2 placed the order on 04.05.2013 and the Opposite Party No. 1 delivered the orders on 24.07.2013 and after receipt of this spare parts on 8.08.2013 informed the complainant and 21/08.2013 complaint took delivery of vehicle. Opposite party No. 1 contended that there was a fire accident in their warehouse stock destroyed so they could not sent the spare parts immediately.
However on perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is a delay on part of Opposite Party No. 1 and not by Opposite Party No. 2 because the Opposite Party No. 2 placed orders for spare parts on 04.05.2013 but the Opposite Party No. 1 contended that there was fire accident in their warehouse so that they could not send the spare parts on time. There is no material evidence placed before us in proof of fire accident. In the absence of any proof we hold that there was a delay on the part of opposite party No. 1. However it is seen on record that the vehicle in question kept for repair on 30.04.2013 and the same has been repaired and delivered on 21.08.2013 i.e. 4 months delay. It is obvious to note that the vehicle is need for everyone, every day matters. In this case 3 to 4 months delay in delivery of Vehicle caused inconvenience to the consumer/complainant. But the opposite Party No. 2 has taken steps immediately by placing order for spare parts. Opposite Party No. 1 should have complied the order on time. Since there was inordinate delay on part of Opposite Party No. 1, opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience.
In view of the above discussions, we hold that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and therefore opposite party No. 1 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages to the complainant and Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the litigations expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Therefore complaint against them is hereby dismissed.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is party allowed. The opposite party No. 1 shall pay ₹ 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as damages to the complainant and also pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) and cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 is hereby dismissed.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of MARCH 2016)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Sri N. Vivek Shetty – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : 30.12.2011: Copy of debit Note of Rs. 4,79,021/-
issued by the Opposite Party No. 1.
Ex. C2 : 30.04.2013: Copy of the Repair order creation form
issued by Opposite Party No. 2.
Ex. C3 : 05.06.2013: Copy of the E-mail sent by complainant
to p No. 1 company at its customer care center at Party at 8.pm.
Ex. C5 : 06.06.2013: Copy of the E-mail sent by complainant
at 11.29.a.m.
Ex. C6 : 13.06.2013: Copy of the E-mail sent by complainant
at 3.35 P.M.
Ex. C7 : 20.06.2013: Copy of the E-mail sent by complainant
to Renault customer India at 1.12 p.m. being reminder III and demanded Rs. 1,95,000/- towards compensation for 39 days delay at Rs. 5000/- per day.
Ex. C8 : 26.06.2013: Copy of the E-mail sent by complainant
at 6.24.p.m.
Ex. C9 : : Copy of the particulars of claim.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW-1 : Sri Prabhu Krishnan – Opposite party No. 2.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex. R-1: Copy of the Repair order.
Ex. R-2: Copy of the bill.
Ex. R-3: Copy of the purchase order.
Ex. R-4: Copy of the Invoice.
Ex. R-5: Copy of the Feed back form.
Ex. R-6: Copy of the satisfaction note.
Ex. R-7: Copy of the Email sent complaint.
Dated: 31.03.2016. PRESIDENT
