Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/50/2015

D.Lakshmanan, S/o.Dharmaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balaji Automotive, Honda Exclusive Authirised Dealer, - Opp.Party(s)

P.V.Jayakumari

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :16.03.2015           Date of disposal            :26.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

    PRESENT :             THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                           :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                          : MEMBER-I

                               THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.50/2015

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 26^th  DAY JULY OF 2022

D.Lakshmanan,

S/o.Dharmarajandar,

No.26/43, west kalmandapam Road,

Old washermenpet,

Chennai-600 021.

                                                                                       .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

1. BalajiAuotmotive,

Honda Exclusive Authorised Dealer

No.570, T.H. Raod, Old Washermenpet,

(Opp, VaigaiMahal), Chennai-600 021.

 

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Represented by its manager,

Branch Office no.69, west madachurch street,

Appavoo Towers, 1^st floor,

Royapuram, Chennai-600 013.

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. P.V.Jayakumari&G.Ludhiya

 

Counsel for  opposite party 1                      : M/s. Sampathkumar& Associates &

R.Ramani

Counsel for  opposite party 2                      : Ex-parte

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.51,000/- to the complainant for the amount fixed by the 1^st opposite party for repairing charges of his burnt motor bike and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loss occurred in the business to the complainant due to the unfair practice of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that the he had purchased the Motor cycle Honda Shine (Black) bearing No.TN 03 H 7221 from the opposite party dated on 13.03.2012 at basic price amount a sum of Rs.55,645/- and he had paid upto date insurance properly.  The insurance was still in force. The complainant further stated that he keeps his vehicle in front of his house, at that time suddenly the fire arise in front of his house from nearby his residence and nearly 4 vehicles including the complainant vehicle burnt with the fire,  The complainant stated that the said vehicle no. TN 03 H 7221 was totally burnt with fire.  Immediately he lodged the complainant before the N1 Royapuram Police station vide FIR No.699/2014 and thereafter he informed the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant wants to repair his burnt vehicle and he approached the 1^st opposite party to repair fully and change the spare parts which would be burnt with fire. The 1^st opposite party suggested handing over the vehicle for repair.  The complainant further stated that he would hand over the vehicle to 1^st opposite party for repair on 11.06.2014 and asked him the full estimation of the repairing charges. The 1^st opposite party stated the total estimation value of the repairing charges a sum of Rs. 38,000/- thereafter the complainant, as a policy holder he claimed from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant stated that the 2^nd opposite party verified the estimation of repairing charges fixed by the 1^st opposite party and sanctioned the bill of repairing charges of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.38,000/- sanctioned by automotive company. The complainant accepted to pay the ramaining charges of the estimation value sanctioned by the insurance company i.e.Rs.38,000/- remaining Rs.13,000/-.  The complainant met the 1^st opposite party asked about his vehicle to his shock the 1^st opposite party stated that the total repairing charges of burnt vehicle is fixed as Rs.51,000/- instead of Rs.38,000/-.  The complainant met the 2^nd opposite party stated that the amount of  repairing charges will  be increased by the 1^st opposite party and requested to 2^nd opposite party to sanctioned the claim amount of Rs.51,000/- and the 2^nd opposite party refused to increase the claim. The complainant stated that several requests made by the complainant the opposite parties are replied irresponsibly.  Complainant sent legal notice on 02.12.2014, the said legal notice was duly received by the opposite parties on 03.12.2014. The deficiency of service of both 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties caused the mental agony to the complainant.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE 1^stOPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon. The 1^stopposite party has nothing to say about the fire accident occurred in front of the complainant’s house in which 4 vehicles including the complainant vehicles burnt in the fire. The opposite party gave the estimation for Rs.38,000/- after discussing with the 2^nd opposite party towards repair charges of the complainant’s vehicle.  Accordingly, the complainant his claim for reimbursement and the vehicle was fully repaired, the total expenses exceeded the initial estimation of Rs.38,000/- and the total amount of repair of the vehicle came to Rs.50,877/-.  Complainant had already taken up the matter with the 2^nd opposite party viz. the insurance company for the claim of Rs.38,000/- of which the insurance company has agreed to pay Rs.25088/-  to the opposite party after deduction.  The balance amount payable by the complainant would be Rs.12,912/-. The opposite party is willing to accept Rs.12,912/- from the complainant apart from the amount  agreed to be said by the 2^nd opposite party i.e. Rs.25,088/- On receipt of Rs.12,912/- together with the discharge voucher duly signed by the complainant as per the format of 2^nd opposite party for Rs.25,088/- the 1^st opposite party is willing to hand over the vehicle by foregoing a sum of Rs.12,877/-. The opposite party submitted that on 16.09.2014 informed the complainant the vehicle was ready for delivery.  The customer replied that he will contact the insurance company and take delivery of the vehicle after the settlement from the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite party submitted that the vehicle was sent on 16.06.2014 and after necessary approval from the insurance company, the 2^nd opposite party herein, was made ready on 15.09.2014 and informed the complainant on 16.09.2014. But the complainant alone delayed the entire issue with ulterior motive.  This opposite party is not at all responsible for any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The 1^stopposite party filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments.  The 2^nd opposite party were set ex-parte.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                             The complainant purchased Hero Honda shine two wheeler from the 1^st opposite party under Ex.A1 on 13.03.2012, the registration certificate of the vehicle standing in the name of Complainant is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the insurance policy in respect of the two wheeler from 15.04.2014 to 14.04.2015issued by the 2^ndopposite party, the vehicle admittedly met with fire accident for which and FIR was registered which is marked as Ex.A5.  It is alleged in the complaint that the vehicle was fully damaged due to fire under Ex.A6 the vehicle was handed over by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party for repair on 30.06.2014, it is alleged in the complaint the initial estimation for the repair of vehicle given by the 1^st opposite party is Rs.38,000/- based on which a claim was laid by the complainant to the  2^nd opposite party, but the 2^nd opposite party has sanctioned only Rs.25,000/- towards repair charges  and when the complainant was ready to pay the remaining repair charges of Rs.13,000/- and met the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party stated the total repair charges of Rs.51,000/- instead of Rs.38,000/-.  The complainant stated that the repair charges is very high which is equal to value of new vehicle and further contended the vehicle was not repaired and handed over to the complainant inspite of legal notice and several demands and therefore contended that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and claimed Rs.51,000/- which is the amount fixed  by the 1^st opposite party for repairing charges and for other relief.  The 2^nd opposite party  remained set Ex-parte.

          5. In the version the 1^st opposite party admitted the handing over of the vehicle for repair bythe complainant,  but contended that the 2^nd opposite party agreed to pay only Rs.25,088/- but the total repair charges came to Rs.50,877/- but in any event in order to give a finality to the matter the 1^st opposite party is ready to accept Rs.12,912/- from the complainant apart from the amount agreed to be paid by the 2^nd opposite party i.e. Rs.25,088/- and ready to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on receipt of that amount. Though it is stated in para.4 of written version that the vehicle was fully repaired and it was also informed to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party on 16.09.2014 there is no proof for the same.  But contrary to the same, the 1^st opposite party filed a memo on 28.06.2022 alleging that no payment was received from insurance company and the 1^st opposite party has not produced the bill to the insurance company since the vehicle work was not completed.  This memo will prove deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not submitting the bill for repairing the vehicle to the insurance company and inturn there is also deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party in not paying the insurance amount for the repair of the vehicle to the 1^st opposite party in timeas per para 4 of the written version of the 1^st opposite party wherein it is stated that the complainant already filed is claimed of reimbursement with the 2^nd opposite party.

          6. It is found that the vehicle which was handed over for repair on 30.06.2014 is lying idle with the 1^st opposite party till this date without effecting any repair due to which the complainant is put hardship and loss without the use of the vehicle and therefore the complainant is also entitled for damages towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties, though the complainant claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards his loss incurred his business due to the act of the opposite parties there is no proof to substantiate the same.  It is found that the 1^st opposite party has wrongly stated in the written version that the vehicle was repaired and ready for delivery on 16.09.2014 itself but, whereas as per the memo filed  on 28.06.2022 the vehicle was not repaired and is still with the 1^st opposite party.  Hence it is found that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not repairing the vehicle and handing over the same to the complainant in time and also in not paying the agreed insurance amount towards the repair charges of the vehicle.Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given to point. No.1.  It is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties as stated above and the vehicle is still kept idle with the 1^st opposite party without effecting any repair to the vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party has not filed any document to show that the vehicle was fully repaired and ready for delivery from the year 2014.  Hence, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.35,000/- to enable him to meet out the repairing charges of the vehicle and further the both the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.  If the vehicle in the present condition is retained by the 1^st opposite party he will get unlawful enrichment for which he is not entitled and hence the 1^st opposite party is directed to return the two wheeler to the complainant in the present condition.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant to meet out the repairing charges of the vehicle and  also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

          The 1^st opposite party is directed to return the two wheeler to the complainant in the present condition within a period of two months from the date of this order.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26^th   day of  July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	13.03.2012	Copy of the receipt of the motor vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party at Rs.55,645/-
Ex.A2	19.03.2012	The copy of the certificate of registration of the motor vehicle no TN 03 H 7221
Ex.A3	15.04.2014	The copy of the insurance from 2nd opposite party for the current year
Ex.A4	-	Two photographs of the burned vehicles with fire
Ex.A5	11.06.2014	The copy of the FIR from N1 Royapuram police station.
Ex.A6	30.06.2014	The copy of the receipt of vehicle handed over for repairing
Ex.A7	02.12.2014	Legal notice sent to the opposite parties with acknowledgement.

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:-

-NIL-

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC.No. 50/2015Dated:26.07.2022 Order Pronounced, In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant to meet out the repairing charges of the vehicle and  also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.           The 1st opposite party is directed to return the two wheeler to the complainant in the present condition within a period of two months from the date of this order.   Member-I     Member-II   President