BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Tuesday the 19th day of September, 2006
C.C.No.65/2006.
T.G. Lakshmikanthaiah,
S/o T.Venkateswarlu,
H.No:4-194-26, Sunder Singh Colony,
Dhone (V &M), Kurnool Dist. …Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Managing Director,
M/s. Force Motors Ltd.,
(Formerly M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.,)
Akurdi, Pune-411 035,
Maharastra State.
2. The Managing Partner/General Manager,
M/s. M.G. Brothers Automotive Enterprises,
Dealers for Bajaj Tempo Vehicles,
Door No. 76-110, M.G. Chowrastha,
Kurnool. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. B. Nagalakshmi Reddy Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant, Sri M.Ch. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No.2 and opposite party No.1 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt. C. Preethi Hon’ble Lady member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,331-25 for repairs and replacements, Rs.1,500/- as outside job work charges Rs.13,000/- as loss suffered by the complaint for delay in effecting repairs, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a Tempo Trax Cruiser D1 bearing No.AP21V 7599 from opposite party No 2 on 26.01.2004 for Rs.4,05,525/- with company’s warranty for 36 months or 3 lakh Kms which ever in earlier and opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of said vehicle. On 10.12.2005 while proceeding to Anantapur the said vehicle broke down and, the complainant towed the said vehicle to M/S M.G. Brothers Automotive Enter Prises, Ananthapur by giving phone message to M/S M.G. Brother, Kurnool. On 16.12.2005 the complainant informed the opposite parties through letter about the brake down and requested them to carryout necessary repairs and replacements free of costs as the vehicle was under warranty till 26.1.2006. The branch of M/S M.G. Brothers at Ananthapur informed the complainant that Service Engineer Mr. R.P. Kumar of M/S Force Motor Ltd refused for free replacement and repairs for the reasons best known to them. Thereafter, on 22.12.2005 the complainant advised the dealers works incharge to complete all repairs and replacements as it was getting delayed and the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.25,331-25 towards spare parts, Rs.1500/-towards outside jobs and the complainant lost income of Rs.1,000/- per day for 13 days as the vehicle was stationed in dealers workshop. Hence, the above said conduct of opposite parties in not repairing the complainant’s vehicle free of cost constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) attested copy of Invoice No.65 dt 26.1.2004 for Rs. 4,05,525/- (2) service coupon book of Temp Trax Game D1 along with terms and conditions (3) Spare parts purchase bill (three in Number) dt 24.12.2005 for job card bearing No. 727 (4) Fax message issued to opposite party No.1 and 2 (5) legal notice dt 12.1.2006 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and 2 (6) postal acknowledgement of opposite party No.2 as to the receipt of Ex A.5 (7) postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.1 as to the receipt of Ex A.6 and (8) reply of opposite party No.2 dt 11.7.2006 to the complainant’s counsel, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.8 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 were made exparte and remained absent through out the case proceedings. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their counsel and contested the case by filling denial written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 admits the complainant purchased Temp Trax Cruiser DI bearing No.AP21/V 7599 on 26.01.2004 for Rs.4,05,525/- manufactured by opposite party No.1 and the said vehicle was covered under warranty for 36 months or 3,00,000 Kms which ever is earlier from the date of purchase. It further admits that complainant’s vehicle was brought to their workshop on 12.12.2005 vide job card No. 727 dt 12.12.2005 and immediately contacted opposite party No.1’s service Engineer Mr. R.P Kumar on 13.12.2005 and on advice of said R.P Kumar all the details in format PCR (Product Complaint Report) by email was addressed to opposite party No.1 and also placed emergency order for supply of critical parts for replacement of complainant’s vehicle were also placed, making copy to Mr. R.P Kumar. The opposite party No.2 further addressed a letter to R.P Kumar to visit Ananthapur to inspect the said vehicle but their was no response to the said letter, as repairs were getting delayed the customer requested to complete repairs and replacements, and they have completed the repairs and replacement vide bill No. 1710 & 1711 for Rs.21,474-32 and bill No. 705 for Rs.900/- and delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 24.12.2005. The opposite party No. 2 also processed the claim form duly filled and also addressed another letter to the top officials of opposite party No.1 vide Ex.B9 for reimbursement of complainant’s claim and also dispatched the defective and damaged parts of complainant’s vehicle to opposite party No.1 for their inspection on 27.2.2006.
6. And lastly alleges that there is no deficiency of service on their part and rendered satisfactory service to the complainant’s vehicle and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In support of their case the opposite party No.2 relied on the following documents Viz (1) Job card bearing No. 727 dt 12.12.2005 (2) E-Mail dt 13.12.2005 addressed to opposite party No.1 by opposite party No.2 (3) display order dt 18.12.2005 of opposite party No.2 (4) letter dt 20.12.2005 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1’s service Engineer (5) letter dt 29.12.2005 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1’s service Engineer along with speed post receipt (6) letter dt 5.1.2006 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1’s service engineer along with postal acknowledgment (7) attested copy of claim submitted by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 (8) reply notice dt 11.2.2006 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant’s Advocate (9) letter dt 16.2.2006 of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party No.1’s higher officers (10) attested xerox copy of LR sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.10 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parities:-
9. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Temp Trax Cruiser DI bearing No. AP 21V 7955 on 26.1.2004 vide Ex A.1 from opposite party No.2 who is a dealer and opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of said vehicle and the said vehicle had warranty for 36 months or 3,00,000 Kms which ever is earlier. On 10.12.2005 while proceeding to Ananthapur the said vehicle broke-down and the same was intimating to opposite parties 1 and 2 vide Ex A.4 through fax message and in turn opposite party No.2 (dealer) placed an order dt 18.12.2005 for damaged parts with opposite party No.1 (manufacturer) and addressed a letter dt 20.12.2005 vide Ex B.4 requesting the opposite party’s Service Engineer to inspect the damaged vehicle as soon as possible, and also stated that the customer is pressurizing for free warranty replacement as the said vehicle is under warranty, as there was no response from opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.2 addressed another letter dt 29.12.2005 vide Ex A.5 stating that as it was getting delayed the complainant’s vehicle was repaired and the complainant paid repair bill charges amounting to Rs.25,331-25 under protest.
10. The Ex B.6 is letter dt 5.1.2006 of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party No.1 stating that they are forwarding warranty claim form No. 688397 (Ex B.7) duly filled and signed in respect of job works attended to the complainant’s vehicle and recommends for free replacement. The correspondence between opposite party No.1 & 2goes to show that the complainant’s vehicle was duly attended by opposite party No.2 but there was no response from opposite party No.1 nor any reply to the
letters addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1. The facts born in the above said record are not denied by opposite party No.1. Hence from them it remains clear that the complainant got his vehicle repaired by paying Rs.25,331-25/- even though the said vehicle was under warranty and opposite party No.1 as manufactured not carrying to give any reply to the letters addressed by the complainant and opposite party No.2.
11. The Ex A.5 legal notice dt 12.1.2006 issued by complainant’s advocate to opposite party No.1 and 2, the same grievances such as non attending the repairs of the complainant’s vehicle even though the said vehicle was under warranty period and the complainant had to bear the repair charges and keeping the complainant in darkness without giving any response to the letter addressed to him and alleges deficiency of services on part of opposite parties and claims reimbursement of repairs and replacement bills for Rs.25,331-25/- Rs.1,500/- towards outside jobs and Rs.13,000/- and damages for loss suffered at Rs.1,000/- per day for 13 days.
12. The Ex A.6 and A.7 envisages the postal acknowledgment of the Ex A.5 notice by the opposite parties No.1 and 2. The Ex A.8 and B.8 is the reply of opposite party No.2 denying all the materials averments of Ex A.5 notice of the complainant as false and alleging that there is no deficiency of service on their part, as they have rendered satisfactory service to the complainant’s vehicle.
13. Having gone through the spare parts purchase bill dt 24.12.2005 vide Ex A.3 and also the correspondence that ensued between the parties vide Ex B.4, B.5, B6 and B.9 one thing is clear that the opposite party No.1 as manufacturer of the complainant’s vehicle did not kept up his promise as shown in the warranty in Ex A.2 for rectification of defects and repairs or replacement aroused during the warranty period free of cost and the said defects were attended by opposite party No.2 and the complainant paid the repair charges taking into consideration the amount spend by the complainant during the warranty period, the complainant is remaining entitled for reimbursement of said amounts and opposite party No.1 is also liable for a reasonable compensation of Rs.5,000/- for suffering damage and mental agony at the deficiency conduct of opposite party No.1 and with regard to compensation for delay in repairing the said vehicle no cogent material is placed by the complainant hence it is rejected.
14. As no cause of action is made out against opposite party No.2 case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed for want of merit and force.
15 In the result, case against opposite party No.2 is dismissed and allowed against opposite party No.1 directing opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.25,331/- toward repair charges along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony suffered and
Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra awarded amount shall be paid by opposite party No.1 with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 19th day of September, 2006.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the Complainants:
Ex.A1 Invoice Attested copy No.65, dt 26.01.2004 for Rs.4,05,525/-
Ex.A2 Service coupon book Tempo Trace Gama DI Terms and Conditions of
warrant.
Ex.A3 Spare parts purchased (3) bills dt.24.12.2005 Job.No.727.
Ex.A4 Fax message issued to opposite party 1 & 2.
Ex.A5 Legal notice dt12.01.2006, issued to opposite parties 1 & 2.
Ex.A6 postal Acknowledgement by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A7 Postal Acknowledgement by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A8 Reply of opposite party No.2 dt11.02.2006.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties :
Ex.B1 Job card, dt12.12.2005. Ex.B2 E-mail, dt.13.12.2005.
Ex.B3 Display order, Dt:18.12.2005.
Ex.B4 Letter, Dt:20.12.2005 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.B5 Letter, Dt:29.12.2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party
No.1 (along with speed post receipt).
Ex.B6 Letter, Dt:05.01.2006 of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party
No.1 (along with postal Acknowledgement).
Ex.B7 Attested copy of the claiming placed opposite party No.2 to opposite party
No.1.
Ex.B8 Reply notice, Dated:11.02.2006.
Ex.B9 Letter, Dt:16.02.2006 of opposite party No.2 addressed opposite party No.1
(higher officials).
Ex.B10 Attested Xerox of L.R.sent by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. B. Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate Kurnool.
2. Sri.M.Ch.Prabakara Reddy, Advocate Kurnool.
3. The Managing Director, M/s. Force Motors Ltd., (Formerly M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.,)
Akurdi, Pune-411 035, Maharastra State.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
