IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 201/2020 (filed on 08-12-2020)
Petitioner : Jose P.L.
Pullappallil House,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottaym – 686006.
Rep. by Smitha Justin Jose,
Pullappallil House,
S.H. Mount P.O.
Kottayam – 686006.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Abi Paul,
Service Manager,
Popular Hyundai,
Thellakom P.O. Adichira,
Kottayam – 686630
2) Jino Ani John,
Service Advisor,
Popular Hyundai,
Thellakom P.O. Adichira,
Kottayam – 686630.
(For op1 and 2, Adv. Royce Chirayil)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complainant, who is represented by his wife, alleges that he entrusted his vehicle KL05AT2269 i 20 car on 2.12.2020 for the 3rd service and when the vehicle was brought back day before the day, the complainant noted that the two alloy wheels of the vehicle were removed and replaced by different tyres. When the complainant brought it to the notice of the service person, he undertook to rectify it the next day itself. But nothing was done.
On 3.12.2020 the complainant went to the office of the opposite parties but
they treated him very badly. On 2.12.2020 the opposite parties were called to the police station on a complaint given by the complainant but then also the opposite parties were not ready to rectify the complaint. Hence the complaint is filed before this commission for getting compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The opposite parties were summoned from this Commission and they appeared and filed version jointly.
The opposite parties contended that they were only the staff of Popular Motor World (Pvt) Ltd. who is not a party to the complaint. The popular motor world(Pvt) Ltd. Is the authorised service center of Hyundai company which has been working from 2015 with its high quality service and credibility. At the time of pickup a pick and drop repair order was signed by the vehicle owner recording all the scratches etc. of the body of the vehicle and a copy was served to the vehicle owner. At the time of service, the tyres were only washed and the Tyre pressure and alignment were only checked.
The alloy wheels could be changed only after removal of the wheels. The alloy wheels on the vehicle were not the original Hyundai alloy wheels. They were of company called ‘NEO’. The non-genuine alloy wheels get scratches and discoloration in long time usage.
On 3.12.2020 the opposite parties gave a letter intimating the difficulty
in repairing the non-genuine alloy wheels only. The complaint given to the police also was dismissed as it was understood that it was a fake complaint.
Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and
the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both the complainant and the opposite parties filed proof affidavit. The complainant filed documents which were marked as Exhibit A1 to A7. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the opposite parties.
On perusal of the above evidence on record and pleadings, we frame the
following issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what is the relief?
Issues
The complainant is represented by Smitha Justin Jose and she is referred as the complainant herein. The complainant alleges that the alloy wheels of his car was changed after the 3rd service done by the opposite parties which were not rectified by them. The opposite parties were only the staff of popular motor world (Pvt)Ltd. The complainant though alleges that the wheels were changed by the opposite parties, no cogent evidence has been produced before us to prove that there were alloy wheels in good condition before the service and that they were changed and some other wheels were placed. Evidence of any expert is also not produced. Exhibit A4 is only a letter in which Popular Hyundai has stated that the discoloration and scratches of the alloy wheels were not noted at the time of pick up and as they were not genuine they could not be repaired by them. The opposite party’s case is that the alleged alloy wheels are not Hyundai genuine alloy wheels but wheels purchased from some other company. The non-genuine alloy wheels can be got scratched over it in the long run and can be faded. Ext.B1 shows that the alloy wheels are not Hyundai wheels and it was purchased on 30-11-2018.
The complainant could not produce any evidence regarding the police case which found the opposite parties liable for the wheel change. Moreover, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as the allegation is in the nature of a theft. If it be so, this commission is not the appropriate adjudicating authority. The opposite parties being the staff of the service center, there is no consumer relation between the complainant and the opposite parties.
So we find that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency of service if any on the part of the opposite parties with whom she has no consumer relationship. Hence the issues are found against the complainant and the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Pick & Drop Repair Order srs.02-12-20
A2 – Before service Alloy Photo (subject to objection)
A3 – After service alloy photo (Subject to objection)
A4 – Company statement
A5 – Receipt dtd.05-12-2020 issued by Gandhinagar Police Station
A6- Undertaking given by service advisor
A7 – Copy of RC book
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 –Copy of tax invoice dtd.30-11-18
By Order
Assistant Registrar
