By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1. Case of the complainant:-
Complainant is the registered owner of KL-10AR -7171, Toyotta Etios VDSP(M) vehicle. On 12/03/2021 one lorry hit in the back door (Rear door) just behind the driver seat of complainant’s vehicle and got damaged. Then on that day itselfcomplainant entrusted the vehicle to opposite parties for service and repair because opposite parties are the authorized service centre of complainant’s vehicle. The vehicle had full insurance coverage and opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to replace the parts which are defective due to the accident. But complainant wanted to repair the vehicle especially the dicky part of the car and he had instructed the opposite parties to inform him in advance if any replacement of the parts of the car needed.
2. On 27/03/2021 the opposite parties had informed the complainant that the service of the vehicle had finished, but complainant was busy on that day due to some personal matters. Thereafter on 31/03/2021 complainant had approached opposite parties for taken back the vehicle. When he inspected the vehicle in detail he realized that the opposite parties had replaced the back door (Rear door) and the dicky of the vehicle of complainant. Then complainant enquired about this to opposite parties and they said that the complainant’s vehicle had full insurance coverage and that is why they replaced the parts of the vehicle. Then complainant asked the opposite parties to return the original parts removed from the vehicle. Then they said that it is impossible to return the parts and no law insisting the opposite parties to returned the parts replaced from the vehicle.
3. Due to the act of opposite parties the resale value of complainant's vehicle is go down and the resale value will be diminished nearly Rs 1,75,000/-. Without informing in advance to complainant, opposite parties replaced the damaged parts of the vehicle instead of repair and service the vehicle. It is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. Then complainant sent a lawyer notice on 03/04/2021 to opposite parties, but they did not reply for the lawyer notice. Hence complainant approached this Commission to redress his grievance. The act of opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice
4. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 1,75,000/- the depreciation in resale value amount, Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to the act of opposite parties, Rs. 30,000/- the cost of replaced parts of complainant’s vehicle and Rs. 5000/- cost of the proceedings.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed vakkalath on 04/10/2021. On 05/07/2022 no version recorded and posted for affidavit of complainant. Thereafter opposite parties filed version on 06/07/2022 which is beyond the statutory period of 45 days. On 05/07/2022 opposite parties set exparte.
7. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext.A1 series are the true copy of invoice (5pages.) issued by opposite parties to complainant, Ext.A2 is the true copy of Certificate of Insurance-cum-policy schedule dated 01/07/2020, Ext.A3 is the true copy of registration certificate dated 16/06/2014, Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties, Ext. A5 is copy of acknowledgement card and postal receipt.
8. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged
evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced five documents which are very supportive to prove his case. But the contention raised by complainant regarding the diminishing rate in resale value of the vehicle is somewhat imaginary. No documents produced by the complainant to prove that contention. Moreover complainant had instructed the opposite parties to repair and service the vehicle. But in this matter opposite parties had replaced the parts of the vehicle. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
9. We allow this complaint as follows:-
- The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2022.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1: Series are the true copy of invoice (5pages.) issued by opposite parties to
complainant.
Ext.A2 : True copy of Certificate of Insurance –cum policy schedule dated 01/7/2020.
Ext.A3 :True copy of registration certificate dated 16/06/2014.
Ext.A4 : Copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties.
Ext. A5 : Copy of acknowledgement card and postal receipt.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
