Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

241/2014

P.Sakthivel - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARNATION AUTO INDIA (P) LTD., rep by its Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Saravanan

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  15.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 15^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.241/2014

 

 

Mr.P.Sakthivel,

S/o.Pakkiyam,

No.22,Srinivasa Nagar 1^st Main Road,

3^rd Floor,

Platinam Tower,

Kolathur,  Chennai – 99.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

CARNATION AUTO INDIA (P) LTD.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

At No.3/16, Shanti Niketan, 2^nd Floor, New Delhi-110021,

Also at No.B-20, 1^st Main Road,

Ambathur Industrial Estate,

Ambathur, Chennai – 58.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 19.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : S.Saravanan

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s.K.R.Neelambar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.31,000/- and also  another sum of Rs.2,61,680/- paid by him for repair  and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-   per day for non use of car from 20.03.2014 to till realizing the amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards  compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant entrusted his Ford Fiesta Car bearing registration No.TN 02-X 4986 to the Opposite Party for regular service on 20.03.2014. The Opposite Party serviced the vehicle and delivered to the Complainant on 24.03.2014 and for the said service he had charged a sum of Rs.18,000/-. While taking the delivery of the said vehicle, the Complainant noticed several scratches on the rear side of the vehicle  and also noticed high smoke from the vehicle and questioned the Opposite Party and for which the Opposite Party replied that to come  back again within  two  or three days to clear the scratches.  On believing their word the Complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle.

          2. On 27.04.2014 the Complainant planned to go to his native place to attend his function and when he started the car he heard noises in the engine and did not function properly. Immediately he took his car to the Opposite Party and after service delivered the car to the Complainant on 31.03.2014 by charging a sum of Rs.13,000/-. That time also the Complainant noticed the scratches remained and also noticed too many noises from the engine and very low pulling power. The Complainant refused to take back the delivery of the vehicle and the Opposite Party threatened the Complainant with dire consequences and hence the Complainant went to the nearest police station and made a Complaint against the Opposite Party. The police officials made enquiry and refused to take action against the Opposite Party for the reasons best known to them. The act of the Opposite Party is breach of trust. At the time of delivery the condition of the vehicle was bad. At present the car is not in useful condition. Hence the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in providing service to the Complainant vehicle.

3. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the sum of Rs.31,000/- and also   another sum of Rs.2,61,680/- for repairing  paid by him and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-   per day for non use of car from 20.03.2014 to till realizing the amount and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards  compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant left his vehicle on 20.03.2014 for general service and after service he charged a sum of Rs.18,400/-  and delivered to the Complainant on 24.03.2014 and for repair of AC the  vehicle entrusted to him for second time on 27.03.2014 and the same was repaired and delivery to the Complainant on 31.03.2014 charging a sum of Rs.13,356/-. This Opposite Party did not receive any Complaint regarding the scratches of the rear view side of the vehicle and never promised to rectify the same in another two or three days. The Complainant never reported smoke from the vehicle. For the second time the vehicle was entrusted to repair non cooling of AC only and not with any other issue. The sum of Rs.13,356/- was charged for replacing AC evaporators and expansion valve with other expenses.

          5. On both the occasions the Complainant has paid the bill amount without his satisfaction and now the Complainant concocted and fabricated story in order to avail undue benefits and to tarnish the goodwill of the Opposite Party. Therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service to the Complainant while servicing his vehicle and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant entrusted his Ford Fiesta Car   to the Opposite Party for general service on 20.03.2014 and the said vehicle was serviced and delivered to the Complainant on 24.03.2014 on charging a sum of Rs.18,400/- under Ex.A1 bill issued by the Opposite Party and the said amount also paid by the Complainant and again the said vehicle was entrusted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for service on 27.03.2014 and the said vehicle also after service delivered to the Complainant on 31.03.2014 by charging a sum of Rs.13,356/- under Ex.A2 bill.

          8. The Complainant contended that while delivering the vehicle on 24.03.2014 after service, he noticed that there were scratches on the rear side of the vehicle and also smoke  from the vehicle and when questioned about the same, the Opposite Party persons told him that to come with the vehicle after two or three days and they would repair the same and again on 27.03.2014 when he started the vehicle to go to his native place, he noticed that noises came out  from the engine and  with very low pulling power and hence on the same day he entrusted the vehicle and after service, it was delivered  on 31.03.2014 and all the above said defects were remained and thereafter the Opposite Party threatened  the   Complainant with dire consequences and hence he preferred Complaint to the police and however the police did not take action for the reasons known to them and thereby the Opposite Party committed deficiency in providing service to the Complainant vehicle.

          9. The Opposite Party would contend that the vehicle was first time entrusted only for general service and for second time there was no cooling in the AC and hence the vehicle was entrusted and in all the occasions they have properly serviced the vehicle and delivered to him and since there is no truth in the Complaint preferred by the Complainant the police did not take any action against him and hence the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          10. The Ex.A1 bill proves the general service. Ex.A2 bill also proves that as contended by the Opposite Party that for non cooling of AC the valve expansion, evaporators unit and cooling coil are all changed proves that for the second time the Complainant entrusted the vehicle only for non cooling of AC in the vehicle.

          11. The contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had damaged the engine of the vehicle and the same is proved through Ex.A4 that the engine turbo and many other parts were changed and he had incurred a huge amount of Rs.2,38,650/-. If, as alleged by the Complainant the Opposite Party damaged the engine and delivered to the Complainant on 31.03.2014, he had not have waited for three more months to repair the vehicle as per Ex.A4. Therefore, as contended by the Opposite Party after delivery of the vehicle on 31.03.2014, after three months the Complainant repaired the vehicle with SCM Auto Works and issued Ex.A4 receipt  on 10.07.2014 leads to a conclusion that the engine was not damaged by the Opposite Party as contended by the Complainant. Further there is no symptom in Ex.A4 for repairing the scratches in the rear view of the vehicle proves that as contended by the Opposite Party they have not made any scratches in the vehicle. According to the Complainant while servicing the vehicle the Opposite Party made scratches in the rear view of the vehicle is not accepted.

          12. The nature of the Complainant given to the police was not known by way of documents of evidence as the Complainant had not filed the copy of the same. The Opposite Party clearly stated in his proof affidavit that he had briefed the police with their respective facts and after satisfaction; the police did not take any action against the Opposite Party. The mere Complaint to the police will not prove that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service. Therefore from the forgoing discussions we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.     

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.03.2014                   Bill issued by the Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 31.03.2014                   Bill issued by the Opposite Party

Ex.A3 dated 28.04.2014                   Legal Notice issued by the Complainant

Ex.A4 dated 10.07.2014                   Repair Bill

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 06.01.2015                   The authorization letter issued by the

                                                    Opposite Party

 

Ex.B2 dated 09.05.2014                   Reply Notice of the Opposite Party

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT